E 398 
.S95 
Copy ] 




3*> 



* Jk ■ ■ J 



• r"€'r", 



. 



•** # ' 



• 






rfMfcr 



V 






L - V 






Ex Libris T 





Glass H v\S 
Book .S^ 



J^ 



\ 



1 




tf 



EXAMINATION 



&fo. 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS 



tfNDER THE 



FOURTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT, 



WITH AN 



APPENDIX OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 



BY STJX.FICITJS. 



PORTLAND: 

PRINTED AT THE ARGUS OFFICE, BY THOMAS TO»B. 

1829. 



*f* 



*— • 



■ lT 



/ 9 A 



PREFACE. 



Some gentlemen, whose opinions are entitled to great respect, have 
expressed a desire that the numbers of Sdlpicius, on the decision of the 
Commissioners under the fourth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, origin- 
ally published in the Eastern Argus, should be republished in a form 
more convenient for reference and preservation. In compliance with the 
wishes thus expressed, they are now offered to the public in a pamphlet 
form. An additional value is given to this republication by a variety of 
Notes, which have been subjoined to the text, and by an Appendix of in- 
teresting Official Documents, relating to our eastern boundary, which 
have never before been made public. 

It is a little singular that the American Commissioner should urge it 
as a ground of complaint that the merits of this decision have been made 
the subject of public discussion. It is a sufficient answer to these com- 
plaints that it has now become a matter of public history, and, like all 
historical facts, is fairly open to public criticism. When the terms of 
the decision were first announced, they were heard with no little sur- 
prise by all who were acquainted with the merits of the controversy. 
They could see no principle on which the valuable islands of Campo- 
bello and Grand Menan could be awarded to Great Britain consistently 
with the terms of the treaty of 1783. 

The decision, also, had been the subject of public discussion in our 
Courts of Justice, and had frequently been alluded to in the public 
prints in the language of censure. Whenever this was done it appeared 
to excite no little sensibility in the mind of the American Commissioner. 
About two years ago he replied to one of these newspaper paragraphs 
under his proper signature, complained of the unfairness with which he 
was treated and invited and challenged a public discussion of the subject. 
The tone of confidence and even of defiance, which he then assumed, 
makes his present complaints appear still more extraordinary. It how- 
ever failed to convince the public of the justice of the decision ; and the 
general dissatisfaction, originally felt, was increased by the publication 
of certain documents, relating to our eastern boundary in the appendix 
to the valuable report to our legislature relating to that subject. 



iv PREFACE. 

It was supposed that the correspondence of our Commissioner with 
the government, while, he was acting on the commission, might throw 
some light on the subject. That was called for by the Senate of the 
United States and a portion of it was communicated to the Senate and 
by them published among the public documents. This has been copied 
into our newspapers and read not merely with a feeling of disappoint- 
ment, but of disgust. It would be difficult to find, in the archives of any 
government, official letters more discreditable to their author in every 
point of view. It was Mr. Holmes's defence of the decision, in answer 
to the caustic remarks in the public prints on this correspondence, which 
produced the numbers of Sulficius. 

It is not the object of this preface to comment on Mr. Holmes's cor- 
respondence, but there is one remark which it may be proper to make in 
this place. Mr. Holmes has, on many occasions, taken no little praise to 
himself on account of the short time within which his commission was 
brought to a close, and has mentioned it in such a way as was calculated 
to make an impression that his diligence in bringing the business to a 
close was prompted by a desire to save expense to the public. His let- 
ters exhibit indeed an extraordinary solicitude to hasten the business of 
the commission to an early termination ; but in these he never alludes to 
the saving of expense as a motive for this. The reason of his anxiety, 
given at that time, was his desire to take lus seat in Congress, which he 
could not do while the commission continued. This is the only motive 
he gives and this indeed constitutes the whole burthen of his correspon- 
dence. The saving of expense seems now to come out as an after- 
thought. His urgency on this subject is so vehement, and expressed in 
terms of such pressing zeal and earnestness, as to become quite ludic- 
rous. The following extract of a letter, under the date of Oct. 3, 1817, 
from Mr. Austin, the American Agent, to the Secretary of State, will 
shew how embarrassing the impatience and pertinacity of Mr. Holmes 
was to all the other persons connected with the commission. "The 
"English Agent" says he, "has declared lus intention to claim an ad- 
journment until spring to give time to answer my last memorial, and 
"the English commissioner thereupon stated that he woidd not consent 
"to finish the business until his Majesty's agent has the delay he requires. 
"Mr. Holmes insists that enough has been already written, and that if 
"the English commissioner will not forthwith proceed to a definitive set- 
tlement he shall consider it as a wilful refusal to act and will act alone, 
"according to the provisions of the treaty in the case supposed." Mr. 
Austin also, in the same letter, expressed great anxiety for further time 
to reply to the British argument. 



PREFACE. v 

Mr. Holmes however pertinaciously insisted on coming to an imme- 
diate decision against the strongly expressed wishes of every other person 
connected with him on the commission. The extravagance of the 
supposition that he had a right to make up an ex parte decision under 
these circumstances is, on the face of the thing, as gross as can well be 
imagined; but its absurdity is yet farther heightened by a suggestion he 
makes in Ids own letters, that the agents might complete their arguments 
and 'file them with the papers after the commissioners had made their de- 
cision ! 

Tins state of things was undoubtedly embarrassing to Mr. Holmes. 
He had determined at all events to take his seat in Congress, and he had 
but two courses to choose between. First, to make an ex parte state- 
ment, and, secondly, to agree to Mr. Barclay's terms. His ex parte state- 
ment, made under such circumstances, would probably be treated as a 
nullity and therefore the only course which remained was to agree to the 
terms of the British Commissioner. If this is a correct view of the 
case, there is certainly some ground for the remark which has often been 
made, that the valuable islands of Campobello and Grand Menan were 
taken from this State and ceded to Great Britain in order to enable 
Mr. Holmes to take his seat in the House of Representatives. 

In republishing the argument on one side it would have been desirable, 
in the same pamphlet, to have given Mr. Holmes's defence. An offer was 
made to him to this effect, provided he would advance his proportion of 
the expense. But to this offer he has made no answer. This is the more 
singular as in his first letter, alluding to his former challenge, he said that 
he hoped some person, who was master of the subject, would have under- 
taken it and proposed some "impartial paper to publish the whole contro- 
versy. This" he adds, "would have been gain to him, gain to the whole 
people, arid is what I now offer." But when the controversy is closed and 
an offer is made to republish the whole, in one pamphlet, he declines to 
accept it. Those who have read his letters in the Portland Advertiser 
will not be at a loss to account for this apparent change of opinion. If 
the decision does not admit a more satisfactory defence it would probably 
be thought wise in him to leave it without any, on the principle that a 
defence, which is a total failure, is worse than none. Mr. Holmes, in his 
letters, has exhibited not only a singular carelessness in his bold and pos- 
itive assertions, such as must lay him under the imputation of a disregard 
for truth ; but also an extraordinary ignorance, both in relation to the 
great points on which the merits of the decision must ultimately be tried' 
and of the general history of the country in relation to the subject. 
July 24, 1829. 



EXAMINATION, &c 



No. 1. 

Decision under the fourth Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 

THE RIGHT TO EXCHANGE TERRITORY. 

Mr. Holmes's defence of the decision of the Commissioners, under the 
fourth article of the treaty of Ghent, is mixed up with so much extran- 
eous matter, that it must he read with considerable care in order to dis- 
cover the true ground on which it is placed. If I rightly comprehend it, 
he puts his vindication on the principle of an exchange of territory. 
Moose, Frederick and Dudley Islands, he contends, belonged to Nova 
Scotia, and Grand Menan, I understand him as admitting, belonged to 
Maine. And yet the Commissioners decided, directly against the fact 
and the rights of both parties, that Moose Island, &c. belonged to the 
United States, and Grand Menan to Great Britain. 

Before examining into the equality of the exchange, that is, whether 
the islands we received are as valuable as that which we gave, it is pro- 
per to inquire how Mr. Holmes got the authority to make the exchange 
on any terms. An exchange comprehends both an acquisition and a 
cession of territory, and the effect of Mr. Holmes's decision was there- 
fore the acquisition of Moose Island and the cession of Grand Menan, 
which it is admitted belonged to Maine. Where was Mr. Holmes's au- 
thority for ceding any part of the territory of Maine to the king of Great 
Britain in exchange for Moose Island or for any other consideration ? 

We do not admit that the United States have the authority to violate 
the territorial integrity of a State by a cession of a part of it to a foreign 
power nor in any other way. They may decide controversies as to 
boundaries between two States, but their authority extends only to as- 
certaining and declaring the true boundary, not to making a new one by 
giving to one State part of the territory of another. Much less can they 
cede part of the territory of a State to a foreign power. The govern- 
ment of the United States never have claimed this authority ; on the 
contrary they have always expressly disclaimed any such right. If the 
United States possessed no such power under the constitution, they 
could not delegate it to Mr. Holmes. 

But did the government pretend to clothe Mr. Holmes with any such 
powers. All the authority which he possessed was derived from the 
fourth article of the Treaty. We copy below all that part of the article 
which is material to the present question. 

"And whereas the several islands in the bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of 
the bay of Fundy, and the island of Grand Menan in the bay ofFnndy, are claimed 
by the United State* as comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which said 



8 

islands are claimed as belonging to his Britannic Majesty as having been at the time 
of and previous to said treaty of 1783 within the limits of Nova Scotia; in order 
therefore finally to decide on these claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to 
two Commissioners, to be appointed in the following manner, viz : one Commission- 
er shall be appointed by his Britannic Majesty and one by the President of (he United 
States, by and with the aiivice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two 
Commissioners shall be swoi n impartially to examine and decide upon the said 
claims, according to such evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of 
his Britannic Majesty and of the United .States respectively." 

The words which are hi Italics are so marked in the printed copy of 
the treaty. There is not one word about an exchange or a cession of 
territory, but every idea of this kind is pointedly excluded. The treaty 
not satisfied with directing the Commissioners to decide the question of 
right impartially, puts them under the sanction of an oath. Nothing we 
think can be clearer than the line of their duty under these words. — 
Those islands, which by the true construction of the treaty of 1783, be- 
longed to Maine, were to be adjudged" to us, and those which belonged to 
Nova Scotia were to be adjudged to Great Britain. It is incredible that 
Mr. Holmes could tor a moment imagine that under this article of the 
treaty he was authorized to agree to an exchange of territory, or to cede 
any part of this State to the king of Great Britain. Indeed the very 
terms in which the decision is drawn up expressly negative every idea 
of an exchange or cession of territory. The decision recites that the 
Commissioners having been "duly sworn impartially to examine and 
" decide upon the said claims, &.c. have decided and do decide that 
"Moose Island, &c. do belong to the United States of America ; and 
"we have also decided and do decide that all the other islands and each 
"and every of them in the bay of Passamaquoddy, &c- and the island of 
"Grand Menan in the bay of Funday do belong to his Britannic Majesty, 
"in conformity with the true intent and meaning of the said second article 
" of the said treaty <f 1783." 

The decision is therefore expressly placed by its own terms on the 
ground of the title of the patties under the treaty of 1783. Yet Mr. 
Holmes now says that Grand Menan, by the true intent of that treaty, 
belonged to Maine and that it was ceded by the decision to Great Britain 
in exchange for Moose, Dudley and Frederick islands. 

Enough has been said to shew that Mr. Holmes in agreeing to an ex- 
change of territory and to a cession of a part of Maine to Great Britain, 
acted without color of authority derived from the treaty. And he un- 
dertook to exercise an authority which even the Government of the 
United States do not possess nor ever have claimed. 

The importance of the island of Grand Menan can hardly be estimated 
at too high a price. And it has been a source of no little exultation to 
the British that the Commissioners contrary as we believe to their expec- 
pectation, awarded it to them. (1) In a British account of Nova Scotia, 
now [vine before me, it is described as being fourteen miles in length 



[]) In a pamphlet published in London in 1826, entitled " Considerations of the 
Claims and < induct fthe United States respecting their Northeastern Boundar.v," 
quote I « itb appr ibation by other British writers, it is said, page 12, " By inserting 
in the treaty (ofGlie.nl) the name of Grand Menan the Americans were admitted 
t«. add a new rlaim, which had never before bt en heard or Imagined, and which was 
so ruinous to urn and so untenable in ih- m that it has been happily compromised by 
some minor sacrifici." The Provincial anil" rities and ISritish writers attach im- 
mense importance to this noble Island as " the Key of the Bay of Fundy." 



and nine in breadth, having a soil of luxuriant fertility and richly covered 
with valuable timber. It has a large number of smaller islands around 
its shores, forming excellent harbors and most advantageously situated 
for carrying on the fisheries. This account makes its extent about 126 
square miles or about 80,000 acres, at least ten times larger than the three 
islands which it is said we received in exchange for it. But its greatest 
value to us would be in time of war, when it is the key of the bay of 
Fundy, lying directly at its entrance and close under our shore. Every 
vessel bound to Eastport is obliged to pass within a few miles of the 
island. ( 

Mr. Holmes seems to have a suspicion that, even admitting his author- 
ity to make the exchange, he has in point of fact made a bad bargain for 
this country; that the value of the territory ceded is greater than that of 
the land received. This must be the reason, for no other can be imagin- 
ed of the peculiar stress he lays on the joint letter or declaration, as it is 
called, of the Commissioners. In this declaration, after reciting their 
decision, they say that "several reasons induced them to adopt this meas- 
" ure ; one of which was the impression and belief that the navigable 
"waters of the bay of Passamaquoddy, which by the Treaty of Ghent is 
"said to be a part of the bay of Fundy, are common to both parties for 
" all purposes of direct and lawful communication with their own terri- 
" tories and foreign ports." 

This declaration, Mr. Holmes says, "secured to us a common right to 
" all the navigable waters in the bay of Passamaquoddy." This asser- 
tion is even more extraordinary than the declaration of the Commission- 
ers. In the first place the declaration does not profess to secure us in any 
right. It is merely an expression of the private opinion of the Commis- 
sioners that these waters were common to both parties for all the ordi- 
nary purposes of navigation. (2) If they were so, independent of this 
opinion, they continued to be free after, and if they were not, the opinion 
of Messrs. Barclay and Holmes did not even profess to make them so. 
In the second place if they had taken upon themselves expressly to decide 
that the waters were common for the purposes of navigation, this decis- 
ion would have been a mere nullity. It could have no effect whatever, 
because this was not a question referred to their decision. They had 
therefore no authority to make it. They might just as well have decided 
that the waters of the Chesapeake bay or those of Bristol channel were 
common, and the decision would have been just as binding and deserving 
of just as much regard. The opinion of Messrs. Barclay and Holmes 
may be worth as much as that of any other two men, but it is worth no 
more ; and it is in the highest degree preposterous to pretend that it se- 
cures to us any right to the waters which we should not have had if no 
such opinion had been given. 

(2) It is worthy of remark that while the proceedings of the Commissioners and 
their decision, under their hands and seals, are recorded at length on their Journal, 
this joint letter, to which Mr. Holmes would attach so much importance, is no 
where recorded or alluded to in the record of their proceedings. Another fact I will 
here state on unquestionable authority, unimportant it is true, but conclusive againsr 
Mr. H. "The decision" is an instrument extended on parchment, executed undef 
the seals of the Commissioners, with all the solemn formalities and attestations ot 
international acts. " The letter" is an entirely distinct and separate affair, written 
in the usual manner of other gentlemen's private letters. 
2 



10 



No. 2. 
BOUNDARIES OF NOVA SCOTIA. 

t have already examined the question of Mr. Holmes's authority to 
agree to an exchange or cession of territory, and nc w proceed to the 
other question, the terms of the exchange. It is admitted that Grand 
Menan by the decision was ceded to Britain. What have we received 
in exchange for it? Mr. Holmes says Moose, Dudley and Frederick 
islands. Whether these belonged to Maine or Nova Scotia depends on 
the true construction of the second article of the treaty of peace and lim- 
its of 1783. The material part of the article is that which describes our 
eastern boundary. After describing it by the river St. Croix to its source 
and from thence due north to the highlands, &c. it proceeds, " compre- 
hending all islands tuithin twenty leagues of any part of the shores of 
" the United States and lying between lines to be drawn due east from 
u the points where the aforesaid boundaries of Nova Scotia on the one 
"part and East Florida on the other shall respectively touch the bay of 
" Fundy and the atlantic ocean ; excepting such islands as now are or 
"heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova 
"Scotia." 

The bay of Passamaquoddy is decided by the treaty of Client to be 
part of the bay of Fundy. Let the reader then take a map of the United 
States and draw a line from the mouth of the Schodiac, which is decided 
to be the St. Croix, due east twenty leagues, and another due east twenty 
leagues from the mouth of the St. Mary's, and then join them by a line 
following the curvature of the shore and at the same distance from it ; 
and all the islands, which lie between that line and the shore, are by the 
treaty of 1783 declared to belong to the United States. But this line, it 
was manifest, would include a number of islands in the bay of Fundy 
which lie along the Nova Scotia shore. An exception was therefore 
introduced into the treaty intended to include such islands as were within 
the limits of Nova Scotia and had always been considered as belonging 
to that province. It is perfectly clear therefore that all the islands in the 
bay of Passamaquoddy as well as Grand Menan fell to us under the 
treaty, unless they could be brought within the exception. The title in 
us was full and perfect by the general words of the treaty, and the 
burthen of proof was thrown on the British, to extract them from the 
general terms of the grant or cession and bring them within the proviso. 
Having stated the question, I will now give Mr. Holmes's statement of 
it, as well as it can be culled from the irrelevant and extraneous matter 
with which it is mixed up. 

" By the treaty of 1783, which was our rule of derision, all islands within certain 
lines and within 20 leagues from the shore were to belong to the United Slates, ex- 
cept such islands as did or had belonged to the Province of Nova Scotia. The ques- 
tion which the Commissioners had to decide was, whether the Islands in the Passa- 
maquoddy and Grand Menan in the bay of Fundy were included in the exception." 

" The decision it will be seen, must have turned on the extent of the Province of 
Nova Scotia, lifter the cession of Canada to Great Britain in 1764, she erect- 
ed Nova Scotia into a Province and defined its limits including all Islands 
within six leagues of the shore. A survey hail been taken by Commissioners under 
the treaty of 1795, (Jay's treaty) and the Islawds had been accurately and carefully 
surveyed and located. No new survey, even had some errors been suspected in the 
first could possibly have affected the question." 

" I have already observed that it was not the relative magnitude of the channels, 



11 

but the distance of these Islands from the Nova Scotia shore, which must form tha 
ground of our determination." 

From this statement it appears that the defence of the decision of the 
commissioners rests wholly on the question of the extent of the province 
©f Nova Scotia. And the extent is determined by an act of the mother 
country, by which she erected Nova Scotia into a province after the 
cession of Canada in 1764, he should have said 1763. By this act, Mr. 
Holmes says, all islands within six leagues of the shore were included within 
this province. 

I have looked and inquired in vain for any such order of council, act 
of Parliament, ordinance or decree of the British government as is here 
described by Mr. Holmes. He has been called upon to produce or name 
it and he makes no answer, and until he shall see fit to reply to these 
repeated calls, I feel myself justified in denying that any such ordinance 
is in existence. 

Canada was ceded by France to Great Britain by the treaty of Paris, 
concluded the 10th of February, 1763.- On the 7th of October following, 
the King issued his proclamation dividing the ceded territories, including 
others as well as Canada into four provinces, viz; Quebec, East Florida, 
West Florida and Granada, describing the extent and limits of each. 
Nothing is here said of Nova Scotia, and therefore this proclamation 
affords us no light for the decision of the present question, and we must 
look to some other document for the boundaries of that province. 

In the appendix to the report of the joint select committee of the legis- 
lature of Maine of 1828, on the North Eastern boundary, we have copies 
of a series of Commissions of the Governors of Nova Scotia from the 
year 1719 down to 1766, with one later to which no date is annexed. 
These will furnish us some aid in the investigation of this question. 

The first is to Richard Phillips and bears the date of 1719. It gives 
no boundaries to the province but merely appoints him "Captain Gen- 
eral and Governor in Chief in and over our province of Nova Scotia or 
Acadie in America." The second is to Richard Cornwallis, which also 
without assigning boundaries to the province, names him as " Captain 
General and Governor in Chief in and over our province of Nova Scotia 
or Acadie in America, with all the rights, members and appurtenances 
whatever thereunto belonging :" adding the latter clause to the form used 
in the former Commission. The third is dated March 18, 1752, to Pere- 
grine Thomas Hopson, the fourth to Charles Lawrence m 1755, and the 
fifth to Henry Ellis dated April 1, 1761, all which it appears were in the 
same form with that of Col. Cornwallis. 

In February 1763, as we have seen, Canada was ceded to Great Brit- 
ain, and in October the ceded countries were erected into four provinces 
and their boundaries fixed. In the same month of October, Gov. Ellis's 
commission was revoked and Montague Wilmot was appointed Gover- 
nor. In his commission we find, for the first time, the limits of the pro- 
vince defined by accurate bounds. It is worthy of remark also, that a 
draft of his commission was made and the boundaries of the province 
established contemporaneously with the proclamation which defined the 
limits of the adjacent province of Quebec. We copy all that part of the 
draft which describes the boundaries. (3) It is as follows : " bounded on 

(3) In the above extract we have paid the most scrupulous respect to Capitals, 
Commas and Colons, for reasons which will hereafter be seen, having carefully com- 
pared it with the copy in the archives of Maine, from wh.ch the jo.nt comra.ttee 
made their extract. 



12 

%i the westivard by a line draivn from Cape Sable across the Entrance of the 
" Bay of Fundy, to the Mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said River to 
•'its source, and by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern 
"boundary of Our Colony of Quebec: to the Northward by the said 
"boundary as far as the Western extremity of the Baye des Chaleurs : To 
" the Eastward by the said Bay and the Gulph of St. Lawrence to the 
"Cape or Promontory called Cape Breton, in the Island of that name, 
"including that Island, the Island of St. Johns, and ail other Islands with- 
" in six leagues of the coast ; And to the Southward by the Atlantic 
" Ocean from said Cape to Cape Sable aforesaid, including the Island of 
" that name and all other Islands within forty leagues of the coast, with all 
"the Rights, Members, and Appurtenances whatsoever thereunto be- 
" longing." 

Here we have a document in 1763, defining the boundaries of the 
province of Nova Scotia and limiting its extent. What the limits of the 
province might have been before we do not learn. None are given in 
the Commissions of the Governors. But this shews us what they were 
at that time. Three years afterwards, 1766, Governor Wilmot's com- 
mission was revoked and William Campbell was appointed Governor 
under a commission describing the boundaries in terms, with a few ver- 
bal variations, precisely agreeing in substance with those employed in 
the commission to Wilmot. In 1773, Governor Campbell's commission 
was revoked and a commission was given to Francis Legge as Governor, 
which also conforms in the description of the boundaries with the com- 
mission of Governor Wilmot. The date of Legge's commission is not 
given in the appendix to the report, but I find in a list of promotions for 
that year, taken from the London Gazette, that Campbell was appointed 
on the 2d of June as Governor of South Carolina, and on the same day 
Legge is gazetted as his successor in Nova Scotia. (4) 

Here then we have a series of authentic documents from 1763 to 1773, 
shewing beyond contradiction what were the boundaries of Nova Scotia 
during those yeats. It is the Western boundary only with which we are 
now concerned. That is made by a line drawn from Cape Sable to the 
mouth of the river St. Croix. If the reader will take a map and draw a 
line due east from the mouth of the St. Croix twenty leagues, and then 
continue this line south-westward at that distance from our coast and 
following its curvature, this will form the eastern limit of the United 
States, and all the islands between that line and our coast are by the 
treaty of 1783 yielded to us. Then draw a line from Cape Sable to the 
mouth of the St. Croix and it will be seen that this intersects our line of 
demarkation and cuts off a considerable triangle in the waters of the bay 
of Fundy. Some of the islands in the bay of Passamaquoddy and the 
Wolf islands in the bay of Fundy lie within this triangle. The general 
words of the treaty of peace would have given these islands to the United 
States, if it were not for the exception, and it appears that it was to save 
these islands, which were within the former limits of Nova Scotia, that 
the exception was introduced into the treaty. 

The question therefore whether Moose, Frederic and Dudley islands 

(4) The successor of Legge was John Parr, whose commission is dated July 29, 
1782, only four months before the oreliurinary articles of peace were signed at Pari*. 
The boundaries of Nova Scotia, as set out in Parr's commission, are precisely the 
same as those in the commission of Legge. For extracts from all these commis- 
sions, »* well as fgr their precise dates, see Appendix. 



13 

belonged to the United States or Great Britain, did not depend on the fact 
xchether they tvere within six leagues of the Nova Scotia coast, but whether 
they lay west or east of a line drawn from Cape Sable to the mouth of the St.. 
Croix. It will be seen by an inspection of the map, that this line passes 
through Campobello and'Deer Island, leaving something more than half 
of the former to the west, and perhaps two thirds of the latter to the east ; 
but not touching either of the three islands in question. These all lie 
considerably to the west. There never could therefore be a question 
under the treaty of 1783, as to our title to Moose, Dudley and Frederic 
islands. The only doubt which could arise would be as to Campobello 
and Deer Island, as both of these are cut by the boundary line. The 
fair construction of the treaty would have given Campobello to us and 
Deer Island to Great Britain. First, because the larger part of the 
former lies west of the line and the larger part of the latter east ; and 
secondly, because the main channel of the river or the principal current 
runs west of Deer Island and east of Campobello. 



No. 3. 

Mr. Holmes, in the supplements which he has published to his first 
defence, has gradually developed, with more fullness and distinctness, 
the grounds and reasons of the decision. It will be recollected that in 
the first instance he stated that Moose, Frederic and Dudley islands, by 
the true construction of the treaty of 1783, were within the limits of Nova 
Scotia and of course belonged to Great Britain. This position he ap- 
peared to consider perfectly clear, and he said that it was nearly as cer- 
tain that Grand Menan was within the limits of Maine ; and that the 
eontroversy was decided by an exchange of these islands. 

The ground on which he holds that the three first named islands be- 
longed to Great Britain is, that they are within six leagues of the Nova 
Scotia shore, as all islands within that distance of the shore he contends 
are annexed to that province. After being repeatedly called upon to 
name the act of the British government, by which these were established 
as the limits of the Province, he, in his last address, has referred us to the 
commission of Gov. Wilmot, as will be seen in the extract which follows. 
But he has not given us the commission. 

" After the cession, in 1764, Great Britain erected Nova Scotia into a Province. 
The Province was erected in 1764. The document of which he affects to be igno, 
rant and calls on me to produce, is or ought to be in the hands of the Agent himself. 
It is the commission to Gov. Wilmot, to whom I shall by and by allude, and it is 
paying no compliment to the Agent to suppose he has not obtained it." 

The commission of Gov. Wilmot bears the date of 17(53 and not of 1764 

" The next year, 1764, the territory was erected into a Province and a govern- 
ment established, and the boundaries defined, including the islands within six league* 
of the shore. Soon after the disputes between the parent country and her colonies 
commenced and the revolutionary war ensued, which was terminated by the treaty of 
peace of 1788, Nova Scotia had then been a defined province for nineteen years only, 
and no doubt could exist what was the intention of the uegociation of the treaty of 
1783, when they excepted *' those islands which now are or heretofore have been 
within the limits of the Province of Nova Scotia." The reason for deciding on the 
possesion rather than the title, has Wen already gives." 



14 

We now understand from Mr. Holmes, that the document on which 
he relies, is the commission of Gov. Wilmot ; that it was by virtue of this 
commission Nova Scotia was first erected into a province and all islands 
attached to it which were situated within six leagues of the shore. On this 
ground he holds that Moose Island, &c. were within the limits of that 
province. 

On this statement two questions arise of some importance. First; 
was Nova Scotia at that time first erected into a province ? In my last 1 
referred to a series of commissions commencing in 1719, and coming down 
to the appointment of Gov. Wilmot in J 763. They are to the " Captain 
General and Governor in Chief in and over our province of Nova Scotia 
or Acadie in America." If Nova Scotia was not a province from the 
year 1719, 1 should be glad to know what a province is. It is needless 
to multiply words for the purpose of shewing that Mr. Holmes labors 
under an entire mistake on this point. And it is a mistake of such a 
nature that it would naturally excite no little surprise if this was not en- 
tirely swallowed up in the astonishment produced by the second and 
greater error in his statement. 

It will be seen by comparing the two paragraphs which we have cop- 
ied, and more distinctly from one which I shall presently quote, that it 
was the commission of Gov. Wilmot which fixed and defined the limits 
of the province. Thus far we admit Mr. Holmes to be correct : but he 
goes on to say that these boundaries included the islands within six 
leagues of the shore. The reference here must be to the western shore 
because the controversy is confined to these islands. This alone is con- 
clusive of Mr. Holmes's meaning. Besides in his first defence he says, 
"After the cession of Canada to Great Britain in 1764," [as he then said 
the cession was in 1764 and that Nova Scotia was constituted a province 
afterwards,] " she erected Nova Scotia into a province and defined its 
limits, including all islands ivithin sir leagues of the shore.'''' It is perfectly 
clear therefore that Mr. Holmes includes the islands on the western shore, 
as in the bay of Passamaquoddy. Again he says that it was "the dis- 
tance of these islands from the Nova Scotia shore which must form the 
ground of our decision." 

Now if the reader will look to the draft of Gov. Wilmot's commission on 
the 8th and 9th pages of the appendix to the report of the committee of 
the Legislature in 1828, and quoted in my last number, he will find the 
boundary in question to h°. described in the following words ; "bounded 
on the icestward by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of 
the bay of Fundi; to the mouth of the river St. Croix" &c. 

It is perfectly manifest from this that the distance of these islands from 
the Nova Scotia shore, instead of being the sole ground, could have no 
influence on the decision. If they lay eastward of the line which consti- 
tuted the boundary, they fell within the limits of the province ; if they 
lay to the westward of that line they were without its limits and did not 
belong to Nova Scotia, but by the trraty of 1783 belonged to us, if they 
were within twenty leagues of our shore. Moose, Frederic and Dudley 
islands he wholly to the west of the line and therefore did not belong to 
Nova Scotia, but did belong to Maine. Mr. Holmes justifies his decision 
on the ground that he obtained Moose Island, &c. in e» ban^e for Grand 
Menan. But it is now manifest, from the very document to which he 
appeals, that these islands belonged to us before. The result therefore 
is that Grand Menan, to which our title was undoubted, was ceded to 



15 

Great Britain and that we received in exchange for it only that which 
was already our own. The western line of Nova Scotia intersects also 
the island of Campobello, leaving more than half to the west, and Deer 
Island leaving more than half on the British side. Mr. Holmes aban- 
doned our claim to both these islands entire. 

It appears from Mr. Holmes's defence that the Commissioners, in or- 
der to determine the title to the islands, looked only to one fact, viz : 
whether thev were within six leagues of the Nova Scotia shore. How 
Mr. Holmes could have made this mistake with the commissioii of Gov. 
Jf'ilmot before him I will not undertake to say. That commission ex- 
pressly lays down the boundary to be a line from Cape Sable to the 
mouth of the St. Croix ; and Mr. Holmes, with this before his eyes, says 
it s a line including all islands within six leagues of the shore. It is, to 
say the least a most extraordinary mistake, and it will be borne in mind 
that we are trying the decision' by the very document to which Mr. 
Holmes refers for his justification. 

From examining this document I can conceive but one way in which 
Mr. Holmes could have made this incredible blunder, and that is by mis- 
taking the eastern boundary of Nova Scotia for the western. Here we ac- 
tually find the boundary described in the very terms used by Mr. Holmes. 
Tii" commission recites the bounds "To the eastward, &c, including the 
island of St. Johns and all other islands ivithin six leagues of the shore.'''' 
Mr. Holmes, in his first address, copies the identical words, " all islands 
ivithin six leagues of the shore." Is it possible that our commissioner could 
have been so lost in the fog as to mistake the east for the west ? Is it 
possible that he could have been so bewildered and puzzled by the sub- 
tleties of that craftly Englishman (5) as to forget that when he stood with 
his face to the north that the east was on his right hand and the west on 
his left? The southern boundary as given in this commission includes 
all islands within forty leagues of the shore. It is impossible therefore 
that he could have blundered on the southern line. That gave him a 
different number and Mr. Holmes pertinaciously and doggedly adheres 
to the number six. It seems therefore, incredible as it may appear, that 
Mr. Holmes must have mistaken the eastern boundary for the western. 

I now extract another paragraph from Mr. Holmes's last defence. The 
words in italics are so marked by Mr. H. 

" In 1764, Mitchell, by order of Governor Barnard, made a survey and map of our 
eastern border. He lays down the Maggacadava as the true St. Croix— he calls 
the Schoodic, the Passainaquoddy, and he lays down but two rivers, omitting the 
Cabscook entirely. Mr. Adams "says that this was the map by which the ministers, 
in 1783, settled the boundaries. (6) The same year Wilmot was appointed Gov- 



(5) "A gentleman of some plausibility and superficial cunning," as Mr. H. else- 
where describes him. 

(6) This is one of those bold and rash assertions, which Mr. H. with as little re- 
gard to character as to fact, is in the habit of making. The Mitchell's Map, by 
which the Commissioners in 1783 governed their joint and official proceedings in re- 
gard to the subject of boundaries, was published at London, in 1755, with the appro- 
bation of the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, more commonly called 
the Board of Trade — and was compiled, by their permission, principally from mate- 
rials in the Colonial Department. It was the second edition, very much improved, 
of a Map first published by the same Mitchell in 1750. The Mitchell, referred to by 
Mr. Holmes, belonged to New-Hampshire, where he resided so late as 1796. In 
1764 he was sent with a party to explore Passainaquoddy Bay and the true river St. 
Croix. Agreeably to his instructions he returned to Gov. Barnard, in the fall or 



16 

emor of Nova-Scotia, and the boundaries of his Province were inserted in his 
commission and included these Islands. The next year he made a survey of his 
province and so perfectly satisfied with it was the Governor of Massachusetts, that 
lie and his associates, that verj year among whom was this same Mitchell, the sur- 
veyor, took a grant from Wilmot, of 100,000 acres including this same Moose Isl- 
and. The same year Wilmot made grants on Grand Menan, and the other islands, 
and the author of the document from which I have taken these facts, says ' the whole 
of Passamaquoddy Bay, together with Grand Menan, and all the islands in the 
bay have been deemed to be within the limits of Nova-Scotia, until the separation of 
New-Brunswick from it.' " 

The reader will look to the commission of Governor Wilmot and see 
whether " these islands" are included. But to strengthen his argument 
he refers to a grant to Gov. Barnard. It is true that in 1765 Gov. Barn- 
ard solicited a grant of land from the Governor of Nova-Scotia, and 100,- 
000 acres were granted to him, commencing at Cobscook or Deny's river 
and extending to the Schoodiac and including Moose Island. This grant 
however was not accepted, no possession was taken under it, and none 
of the land is now or ever has been held by a title derived from this 
grant. (7) Before the grant was made, Gov. Barnard had sent his own 
surveyor to survey it and from that actual survey he was satisfied the 
land lay, not within the province of Nova-Scotia, but within the limits of 
Maine. 

The same year 1765, says Mr. Holmes, Gov. Wilmot made a grant of 
land on Grand Menan. This will be found to be another of Mr. Holmes's 
mistakes. The first grant by the government of New-Brunswick on 
Grand Menan was made in 1807 by G. G. Ludlow, a refugee, at that time 
President of the Council and acting as Governor. (8) It is worth remark- 
ing that Mr. Owen of Campobello claims Pope's Fo% under a grant from 
the same Ludlow of about the same date. This is one of the islands 
which according to Mr. Holmes are appurtenant to Moose Island. 

It has now I think been conclusively proved that the decision of Mr. 

winter following, a manuscript plan or Map of his explorations. This manuscript 
map of Passamaquoddy Bay, Mr. H. represents to be the celebrated Mitchell's Map 
of North America, published in London in 1755. It is not always easy to deter- 
mine whether the misstatements of Mr. Holmes are to be attributed to ignorance or 
intention. In many cases either supposition may be adopted without any violation 
of probability. 

(7) By a Provincial statute of New-Brunswick, passed more than forty years ago, 
all Nova-Scotia grants, not recorded within a short specified period, are declared to 
be utterly null and void. So far from claiming under this grant the grantees did not 
think it worth their while even to have it recorded. And it never has been recorded 
there to this day. The whole difficulty arose from a misapprehension on the part of 
Gov. Wilmot. Barnard wished for a grant on the east or left bank of the St. Croix. 
Wilmot made him one on the left bank of the Cobscook, supposing that to be the St. 
Croix. 

(8) The first grant made, or patent issued for land on Grand Menan, bears date 
Oct. 30, 1807, Registered Dec. 23, 1807— a copy of this grant or patent is in the 
archives of Maine. It is a concession of 1265 acres on the main Island and of In- 
ner Wood Island adjacent, containing 540 acres — of certain lots containing 
383 acres, part of Harbour Island — of Outer Wood Island, containing 163 
acres, and of Great Duck Island, containing 40 acres. This and other grants of 
land on Grand Menan made about that period by the Provincial authorities of New- 
Brunswick, originated in a scramble on their part for possession and jurisdiction. 
The same remark is applicable to the grant made June 12, 1806, of Mark Island or 
Pope's Folly. 



17 

Holmes was founded entirely on a mistake. How it arose is not for me 
to say, and whether it arose in the manner already suggested or in any 
other way, it is one of those extraordinary blunders which would be 
wholly incredible if we did not see that the fact is so. In reading Gov, 
Wilmot's commission we should say that it was impossible to misunder- 
stand it. Yet strange as it may appear, it is quite certain that it was not 
Understood by Mr. Holmes, 



No. 4. 
MR. HOLMES'S DEFENCE. 

In a former communication I described the western boundary of Nova 
Scotia as being formed by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the en- 
trance ©f the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river St. Croix. This 
description is taken from the draft of Gov. Wilmot's commission, establish- 
ing the general boundaries of the province, and has been repeated in all 
the commissions to the subsequent Governors down to the treaty of 1783. 
These formal and solemn acts of the British government must be held in 
all negotiations with that nation as conclusively binding on her. It 
would seem therefore to be a proposition too plain to require argument 
or to admit of controversy, that the British government could claim no 
island, lying west of that line, as included within the limits of Nova Sco- 
tia. Ail such islands, if within twenty leagues of our shore, belong by 
the treaty of 1783 to Maine. 

It you take a map and draw the line, you will see that Moose, Dudley 
and Frederick lie wholly to the west, that the line intersects Campobello 
and Deer Island, leaving more than half of the former to the west and 
more than half the latter to the east. This is on the supposition that 
the mouth of the river is at Joes point, as has been agreed between the 
two governments. (9) The true mouth of the river is however between 
Campobello and Deer Island ; if this had been established also as the 
conventional mouth, the line would have been still more in our favor as 
it would have been thrown further to the east. It is perfectly immaterial 
therefore, in deciding on the title to the islands in the bay of Passama- 
quoddy, what may be their distance from either shore. You follow the 
thread of the stream to the mouth of the river, whether that be at Joes 
point or east of Campobello, and from the centre of the stream, at its 
mouth, you draw a line across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to Cape 
Sable. 

Mr. Holmes admits that the boundaries of the Province were first 
established by the commission of Gov. Wilmot, and they remained un- 
changed down to the peace of 1783. As the whole controversy turns on 
this document, though the draft has been already quoted, I will again 
recite that part which defines the western limits of the province. It is 
as follows : " Bounded on the westward by a line drawn from Cape Sa- 

(9) In reference to this subject Mr. Holmes, in his letter of the 20th Oct. 1816, 
after the meeting of the Commissioners at St. Andrews, remarks, M We have how- 
ever been strangely treated by the Commissioners under the treaty of 1794. How 
they could have begun and left off as they did, must appear strange indeed to those 
who have viewed the places." Even he could not help seeing that the true mouth 
r.f the Si ('mix. according to the Treaty of 1788, is where I have «tated it to be. 



4 



18 

" ble across the entrance of the bay of Funtly to the mouth of the river 
"St. Croix, by said river to its source and by a line drawn due north 
" from thence to the southern boundary of our colony of Quebec." This 
is the whole description of the Western boundary. 

Nothing is more difficult than to prove the truth of a proposition that 
is all but self evident, or to add to its perspicuity or force by any illustra- 
tion. This line constitutes the western extremity of the province. To 
pretend that an island which lies west of this line is included within the 
province of Nova Scotia, is to contend that it lies at once within and with- 
out the limits of the province. Yet with this document before him, and 
founding his opinion wholly upon it, Mr. Holmes asserts that it is per- 
fectly immaterial whether tlie island lies east or west of the line ; that 
the question of title depends entirely on the fact whether it is within six 
leagues of the Nova Scotia shore or not, though not a word is said of 
islands within six leagues of the shore or within any other distance m 
establishing this boundary. That I may not be charged with misrepre- 
senting his argument I transcribe, from the Portland Gazette of the 21st, 
all that he says on this point. His mistakes are so numerous and thickly 
strewed through his whole statement, from the beginning to the end, that 
1 have found it most convenient to incorporate the corrections into 
the text, instead of subjoining them in the form of notes. If the reader 
will take Mr. Holmes's paragraphs consecutively as they are arranged, he 
will have his whole connected argument in the form which he has chos- 
en to give it. 

" Sulpicius cites the commission of Wilmot, of 1763, and by that he attempts to 
prove, that Moose, Dudley, and Frederick, belong to the United Stales. A line 
drawn from Cape Sable to the mouth of the St. Croix, wo«ld, he says, leave these 
and Deer Isle, without that line." 

I said that Moose, Dudley and Frederic lay to the west and that the 
line intersected Deer Island, leaving more than half to the east or within 
the line. 

" Now, upon his own hypothesis, by the best maps I have been able to consult 
it would leave them all within the line, as defined in that commission." 

All the maps which I have seen leave the three islands above named 
to the west, or out of Nova Scotia. But why is Mr. Holmes obliged to 
refer to maps? Why was not a survey taken to ascertain the fact ? The 
truth is, that Moose Island, &c. lie clearly to the west of this line, beyond 
every kind of doubt. If however this was not certain it might easily be 
made so. Yet Mr. Holmes decided the question of title without ever in- 
vestigating or from all that appears even turning his attention to the only 
fact which was decisive of the title. 

" But still what will he do with this proviso, " embracing all islands within 
six leagues of the s/iore" on all sides except between Cape Breton and Cape Sa- 
ble, and between these all viithin forty leagues ? Does he intend to say that 
if an island lies without that line and is within six leagues of the coast it belongs to 
us, and that if it lies within it, and is more than six leagues it belongs to them ? If 
so, the islands only within a line from Cape Breton to Cape Sable, would be included 
in the grant, notwithstanding it embraced all on that side within forty leagues from 
the shore and the line from (Jape Sable to the St. Croix, "across the entrance of 
the bay of Fundy" would give all to Great Britain. Such a construction is superla- 
tively ridiculous." 

The proviso here mentioned is an interpolation of Mr. Holmes. It is 
not in the commission of Gov. Wilmot, at least uot in the place wherf 



19 

Mr. Holmes pretends to find it. In the document quoted, the western 
boundary is tirst described, then follows the northern and alter that the 
eastern in these words : " To the eastward by the said bay [des Chaleurs] 
" and the gulph of St. Lawreuce to the cape or promontory called Cape 
" Breton, in the island of that name, including that island, the island of 
" St. John and all other islands ivithin six leagues of the coast." The last 
words Mr. Holmes had before transferred from the eastern to the western 
boundary, and he now interpolates them also into the northern boundary. 
Though I have before pointed out this inconceivable and incredible blun- 
der of our commissioner, he still appears not to perceive it. But having 
in the first place mistaken the east for the west, he now goes on in a 
most melancholy train of misconceptions and confounds them both with 
the north. 

The reader has seen that the islands within six leagues of the coast 
are expressly confined to the eastern boundary, and Mr. Holmes might 
just as well have taken forty leagues and applied to the western boun- 
dary as six, because forty leagues is the distance named on the southern 
limit. 

" All islands within six leagues of the shore on all sides between Cape 
''Breton and Cape Sable." Mr. Holmes having already mistaken the 
east for the west and then blended both with the north, we are no longer 
surprised at finding him confounding the ocean and the land, nor at his 
discovering valuable and fertile islands on the lower slopes of Mars Hill 
and the Aroostook mountains. The facetious squire of the valiant knight 
of La Mancha was under a similar hallucination when he went to take 
possession of the government of the renowned island of Barrataria. By 
comparing the commission of Gov. Wilmot with the king's proclamation 
of 1703, establishing the limits of the province of Quebec, it will be found 
that the boundary of Nova Scotia, from the mouth of the St. Croix to the 
bay of Chaleur, is wholly inland, and from the head of that bay to the 
o-ulph of St. Lawrence, the boundary line is made by the northern shore 
of the bay. I believe that it would puzzle any man to find a single island 
which could be brought within the purview of this convenient proviso, 
throughout the whole extent of that line, unless he was endued with the 
keen vision and penetrating sagacity of Mr. Holmes and Sancho Panza. 
But I willingly admit that a man who could find an island hanging on 
the side of Mars Hill, halfway up the ascent, would very probably dis- 
cover a shore on its scathed and weather-beaten summit. 

" The lines from Cape to Cape and from thence to a river embraced the territory — 
the provision as to the islands embraced those within certain distances from that 
territory thus defined. But if it is a line embracing all within it and nothing else, 
why are not all the waters of Fundy and Passainaquoddy exclusively British . 
If a line from Cape to Cape, across this entrance, embraces the islands within it, 
against an express stipulation, surely the waters included are embraced where there 
is nothing stipulated to the contrary. But a more palpable inconsequence, a 
grosser nonsequitur never was attempted. Hear him. The boundary in ques- 
Hon is thus defined—" On the westward, by a line drawn from Cape Sable 
across the entrance of the bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river St. Cr0ix > 
it then passes round to Cape Breton, and in the whole extent it embraces beside tne 
islands enumerated, "■all the other islands within six leagues of the coast. 
Yet ho gravely tells us that our claims to Moose, Dudley and Fredenc ' cliil not 
depend on the fact, whether they were within six leagues */ ' Ae ^™. .« .£ 
coast, but whether thev lay west or east of a line drawn from Cape bable to tne 
mouth of the St. Croix." Embracing all within six eagues and RtaoMW 
whether they were within that distance or not ! It is a fallacy from which it js im 
possible for him to escape— no reasoning can make it more gross or paJpame. 



£0 

It is tedious to be continually exposing the same mistakes. In this 
paragraph it is several times repeated that the islands within six leagues 
Ere included on the eastern boundary. I recommend to Mr. Holmes to 
?ead the commission of Gov. Wilmot again, and if he does not discover 
on the first reading that the proviso with respect to the six leagues is 
confined to the eastern bounds to read it again and again, and then say 
why he adopts six leagues rather than forty. 

" Any man who reads these boundaries will see at once, that with the exception 
of that from the source of the St. Croix to the south side of Canada there is not a 
single straight line from point to point, in the whole boundary. Take For instance 
that from the bay des Chaleurs to Cape Breton. Thia very serpentine course includes 
islands by name and all others within six leagues, and yet a direct line from one 
point to the other would exclude them all and a part of the comment. Take tup* 
from Cape Breton to Cape Sable, embracing the island of that name and all others 
within forty leagues of the coast, when a direct line would have the same operation 
as (he last. Take that from Cape Sable to St. Croix, it is to cross the entrance 
of the bay of Fundy, to embrace all islands within six leagues of the coast. I\ow 
if this line is not to be controuled by the limitation as to the islands it must form a 
considerable angle in crossing « the entrance of the bay of Fundy, and would in- 
clude ali the islands and waters of that bay. 

The entrance into a bay is formed by those Capes or promontories adjacent to the 
ocean, especially if this entrance is narrower than the bay itself. If this line is to 
pass directly across from Cape to Cape (and this is the fair construction) then U 
passes quite to the shore of our main land and from thence to the mouth ot the fet. 
Croix, excludes every island, waters and all. Sulpicius gives the British an argu- 
ment against us, which her agent (and he was pertinacious and sanguine enough) 
would have blushed to urge." 

After the spirits have been wearied with continually pointing out the 
same mistakes, it is refreshing to find something new even if it is a new 
blunder. The language of the record is that the line shall pass from Cape 
Sable to the mouth of the St. Croix. Mr. Holmes says that the fair con- 
struction of this is that it shall run from cape to cape. He would there- 
fore draw the line from Cape Sable to the northern cape at the entrance 
of the bay and from thence by the shore to the mouth of the river. The 
result of this would be as Mr. Holmes contends, that all the islands in the 
bay would be included within the limits of Nova-Scotia. But does he 
intend seriously to contend for this construction? It is in fact the only 
one on which he can justify the decision, but in order to support it he 
must substitute West Quoddy head, the northern cape, at the entrance of 
the bay, for the mouth of the St. Croix. If a line drawn from Cape Sa- 
ble to the mouth of the St. Croix means a line drawn from Cape Sable 
to West Quoddy head, Mr. Holmes is correct. But he surely cannot ex- 
pect this assertion to be answered by an argument. 

I have given the whole of Mr. Holmes's reply and the reader will judge 
whether it has been satisfactorily answered. It is remarkable that while 
Mr. Holmes is commenting on the commission of Gov. Wilmot and giv- 
ing it a construction against the words of the instrument, he does not 
give the commission itself. What can be the reason of this ? Is it be- 
cause that the bare inspection of the document will prove that he has 
entirely mistaken its meaning ? 



21 



No. 5. 



It is eutirelyiunnecessary, for any of the purposes of a candid and tem- 
perate discussion of this subject, to institute an inquiry into the motives 
and occasion of bringing it before the public at this time. But as the 
commissioner and his friends have dwelt largely on this circumstance, as 
though there was something in it particularly invidious, 1 will explain it 
in a few words. When the terms of the decision were first announced 
they occasioned very general and very great surprise. No reason was 
given in the decision and none could give one at all satisfactory. The 
evidence on which the commissioners proceeded was not before the pub- 
lic and is still locked up in the bureau of state. But the committee of 
the Legislature of this State, in investigating the question arising under 
the fifth article of the treaty, collected and published several documents, 
which had also a direct bearing on the decision under the fourth. When 
these came before the public they revived the surprise and dissatisfac- 
tion, which had been originally occasioned by this decision. These made 
it appear still more strange and mysterious than before. Those who felt 
a particular interest in the subject began to ask for more light. It was 
naturally supposed that the correspondence of our commissioner might 
explain the grounds on which the commissioners acted. That was call- 
ed for. We have seen how paltry and meagre it is. But there was mat- 
ter in it to stimulate though not to satisfy the curiosity of the publicv 
Under this state of the case is it surprising that the decision should be- 
come a subject of public discussion? 

Mr. Holmes complains that those who question the correctness of his 
decision do not come before the public with their names. I have not the 
vanity to believe that any thing would be added to the authority of my 
argument, by the addition of my name, especially when I see how little 
consideration the public is disposed to render to the imposing signature 
of Mr. Holmes ; nor do I see any benefit that would result from permit- 
ting the discussion of a question, gravely affecting the interest of the 
State, to degenerate into an angry personal altercation. And Mr. Holmes 
must by this time be satisfied himself that the signature of/. Holmes car- 
ries in itself no more conviction to the mind of the reader than that of 
Sulpichts, and that his personalities have, to say the least, as little weight 
with the public as the arguments of his opponents. 

I thought that the discussion of the question as to the western boun- 
dary of Nova-Scotia, under Wilmot's commission, had been brought to 
a close. It has been proved, beyond the reach of doubt or cavil, that the 
provision as to islands within six leagues of the coast is confined to the 
eastern boundary, and that the western, through the waters of the bay, 
is formed by a line from Cape Sable to the mouth of the St. Croix. It is 
impossible to read the commission in any other way. Mr. Holmes, find- 
ing the argument press him with irresistible force, has resorted to an 
expedient to elude the conclusion as extraordinary as any of the rare 
matters which have heretofore appeared in the progress of this discus- 
sion. His last argument turns wholly on grammatical niceties of punc- 
tuation and the use of capital letters. There is something so irresistibly 
ludicrous, in his dignifying this array of commas and colons and capitals 
with the name of argument, that I can compare it to nothing more 
appropriately than to Mr. Shandy's compendious system of logic and 



22 

rhetoric, which developed the whole mystery of philosophy and elo- 
quence. This turns entirely on the right use of the auxiliary verbs. So 
prolific are these seminal parts of speech, according to this ingenious phi- 
losopher, such millions of new ideas do they engender and such a multi- 
tude of new tracts of argument and inquiry do they open, when the ma- 
chinery is properly set to work, that he avers that the skilful application 
of these unassuming monosyllables constitute the true northwest passage 
to the intellectual world. And so, according to Mr. Holmes, grave and^ 
important questions in the laws of nations and in the constructions of 
treaties, rest wholly on the slender pivot of a semicolon. 

The document describes first the western, next the northern, thirdly 
the eastern, and lastly the southern boundary. The critical sagacity of 
Mr. Holmes has discovered that the whole of this description should be 
read as one continued sentence, neither broken by grammatical points 
nor disfigured by capital letters, till you come to the designation of the 
southern boundary. Here, I presume, because he finds himself panting 
and out of breath, for no other reason can be assigned for it, he stops to 
interpose the resting place of a colon. Not a shadow of a reason can be 
given for inserting a colon here, which does not equally apply to the close 
of the description of the western and the northern boundary. The whole, 
that Mr. Holmes says on this subject, is such a broad burlesque of every 
thing bearing the name of argument, that I shall not spend words in an- 
swering it. I however subjoin, in a note, that part of Wilmot's commis- 
sion in the new reading of our commissioner. 

It is still pretty plain that even Mr. Holmes himself is not very well 
satisfied with his extraordinary criticism on Wilmot's commission, since, 
after ushering it in with all the ceremonious consequence which was 
necessary to fix its glaring absurdity in the memory, he drops this docu- 
ment and invokes the aid of another for the defence of his decision. — 
This is nothing less than an old grant of James the first to Sir William 
Alexander, bearing the date of 1621. 

After all there is occasionally something amusing in the absurdities of 
our commissioner. This old grant is introduced on the stage with osten- 
tatious parade, as though it was a secret known to no person in this 
country but Mr. Holmes himself. (10) First, he says, that he has " not 
yet particularly noticed the grant to Sir William Alexander in 1G21." 
Then he takes care to inform us, it was written in Latin ; this is followed 
by a translation of some parts of it and an annunciation that he shall 
hereafter publish it in the original with a translation, and after giving 
sundry excerpts from this venerable antique, with suitable comments, 
he, Avith wonderful gravity, goes on to inform the reader as follows : " I 
admit I have dealt out this evidence piecemeal and it has decoyed my ad- 
versary. If he was honest he has no right to complain, and if he was 
dishonest he is rightly circumvented. His punctuation will not now avail 
him." This is really too much for the gravity of a common man. This 
fantastic harlequinism would provoke to laughter a congregation of phi- 
losophers. And did you really suppose, Mr. Holmes, that you had decoy- 
ed me, or that I was ignorant of this old grant? Why, the copy of this 
grant, which Mr. Holmes now informs us that he had not seen for twelve 
1 years, is the very first document in the appendix to the report of the 

(10) It is a little curious that Mr. Holmes did not allude to this grant until after 
his attention was directed to it by a writer in the Saco Palladium. 



23 

committee of our legislature. But what has it to do with this question? 
Mr. Holmes had before said that the document he referred to, and which 
established the limits of Nova-Scotia, was the commission of Gov. Wil- 
mot. "The document of which he affects to be ignorant," says Mr. H. 
"is or ought to be in the bauds of the agent himself. It is the commission 
"ofGov.JVilmot." Again. " The same year''' [1764 according to Mr. H. 
"but in fact in 1763] " Wilmot was appointed Governor of JVova-Scotia and 
u the boundaries of his province were inserted in his commission and included 
" these islands." 

The whole argument thus far has been on the construction of this com- 
mission, and when he finds lie can no longer defend his decision on that 
ground, he goes back a century and a half to this old and obsolete grant. 
Before Mr. Holmes puts himself to the trouble of publishing this in the 
original, accompanied by his various translations and running commen- 
tary, we ask him to pause for a moment and consider the force and effect 
of another document to which I will now call his attention. The com- 
mission of Wilmot, which I have quoted and to which reference has been 
constantly made, is the Draft of a Commission. The commission itself 
under the great seal does not vary in substance from the original draft 
but it does in form. For all the purposes of fair argument one is as good 
as the other, and as it was the draft which was copied in the appendix 
to the committee's report, this was most convenient to be referred to. 

Though these two documents are the same in substance the variation 
in form is singularly unfortunate for both branches of Mr. Holmes's argu- 
ment, his criticism on the punctuation of the document, and his reference 
to the grant to Sir William Alexander. The material parts, to which the 
reader's attention is invited, will be found in a report of a joint committee 
of the Council and House of Assembly of the province of JSfova- Scotia ap- 
pointed in 1819, " to take into consideration the conventions with Ame- 
rica and the restrictions in trade." The committee, after some remarks 
on the fisheries and the sacrifices made by the province, say that they 
"deem it expedient to insert a description of the boundaries of the prov- 
"ince of Nova-Scotia as settled .and established by his present Majesty," 
[George III.] "after the peace of 1763, when they were regulated and 
permanently fixed by the commission dated in November 1763, granted 
"by his Majesty under the great seal of Great Britain, appointing Mon- 
" tague Wilmot, Esquire, to be Captain General and Governor in Chief 
"over this province. And his Majesty by that commission thought pro- 
"per to restrain this province within the following limits, that is to say." 
As Mr. Holmes is extremely astute on the matter of punctuation and the 
use of capital letters, I shall be careful not to vary in these particulars 
from the committee. Any argument, therefore, which he may see fit to 
frame out of such substantial and weighty materials as commas and se- 
micolons, he will please to address to the committee of the Nova-Scotia 
legislature. The document recites the boundaries in this way. 

" To the northward, our said Province shall be bounded by the southern boundary 
" of our Province of Quebec, as far as the western extremity the Ray Des Chaleurs ; 
"to the eastward, bv the said Ray and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Cape or 
" Promontory called Tape Rreton, in the Island of that name, including that Island, 
" the Island of St. John's, and all wilier Islands within six leagues of the coast ; to 
" the southward, by the Atlantic Ocean, from the said Cape, to Cape Sable, including 
"the Island of that name, and all other Islands within forty leagues of the coast, 
"with all the rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging; 
"' and to the westward, although our said Province hath anciently extended and doth 



24 

"of right extend as far as die River Pentagonet, or Penobscoit it shall be bounded 
" by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the 
"mouth of the River Saint Croix, by the said River to its source, and by a line 
" drawn due north from thence to the southern boundary of our Colony of Quebec." 

We request the reader to compare the boundaries in this with those 
in the draft. Here the description commences with the northern boun- 
dary and closes with the western. And now what becomes of Mr. H.'s 
continuous reading, by which he unites the description of the western, 
northern and eastern boundaries into one sentence and incorporates the 
qualifying clause, as to the islands, in all three. He must shift his ground 
and blend the south with the west. The only reason for combining the 
whole into one sentence is their juxta position. But he now finds the 
southern boundary intervening, and the limitation as to the islands in 
this being forty leagues he must extend the British claim to that distance 
on the west. If the form of the commission had been altered for the 
express purpose of answering the sagacious criticism of Mr. Holmes, it 
could not have been made so as to do this more effectually. 

Equally fatal is this document to the appeal which Mr. Holmes makes 
to the old and obsolete grant to Sir William Alexander. So little was 
this antiquated grant regarded that, in revising and permanently estab- 
lishing the boundaries of the province, the British government does not 
allude to it ; for it was never pretended that this extended to the Penob- 
scot. The country between the St. Croix and the Penobscot was grant- 
ed in 1664 to the Duke of York, and was known by the names of the Duke 
of York's patent and the Sagadahoc territory. When the French were 
in the possession of the country, they claimed this as within the limits of 
Nova-Scotia or Acadia. It must be to this supposed boundary that the 
commission of Wihnot refers when speaking of the ancient limits of the 
province. It is unnecessary to say more on the subject of this grant, 
since whatever may have been the uncertainty as to the boundaries of 
the province before, there could be none after the date of this commis- 
rion, by which they were definitely and permanently established. 

Note. — The f dlowing extract contains that part of the draft of Wilmot's com- 
missi -m, which describes the boundaries according to Mr. Holmes's reading — 

" The commission of Gov. Wilmot, in the last Argus, accompanving Sulpicius, 
second number, is copied so as to give a false impression of its contents. The Com- 
mission itself reads thus : ' bounded on the west by a line drawn from Cape Sable 
across the entrance of the bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by said 
rivei to its source and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern boun- 
dary of our Province of Quebec to the northward by the said boundary as far as the 
western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, to tie eastward by the said bay and the 
gulf of St. Lawrence to the Cape or promontory, called Cape Breton, in the island 
of the s-.iiiie name, including that Island, the Island of St. Johns, and all other Isl- 
ands within six leagues of the coast. And to the southward by the Atlantic Ocean, 
from said Cape to ("ape Sable aforesaid, including the Island of that name and all the 
Islands within forty leagues of the coast." (11) 

It is thus that Mr. Holmes reads and points this document in the Portland Gazette 
of May 5. I submit this without comment to the reader's judgment. He will see 
that the description of the western and northern bounds are not separated even by a 

(11) To show our readers what Mr. Holmes, who is so ready to insinuate forgery 
against others, is himself capable of doing in the matter of arranging commas, colons 
and capitals, we request them to compare bis punctuation and capitals, as above giv- 
en, with those of the official copy in the archives of Maine. See page 11. 



25 



No. 6. 

Though this discussion seems now to be brought to a natural termina- 
tion and tlie argument on the important points to be exhausted, there 
have been some topics incidentally introduced, to which I ask the read* 
cr's attention for a short time. It has heen most conclusively shewn that 
our commissioner never understood the merits of the question. Not a 
doubt can remain that Mr. Holmes was under a great mistake in suppos- 
ing Moose Island to belong' to Nova-Scotia. Our title to Campobello was 
nearly, if not fully, as clear as to Moose Island, and Mr. Holmes himself 
admits that Grand Menan was ours. 

Indeed from the beginning of this discussion he appeared to be doubt- 
fid whether the decision could be defended on the evidence. Otherwise 
I cannot account for his putting forward, at the very outset, the letters 
of Messrs. Monroe, Adams and Clay. Immediately on the call made for 
his correspondence by the Senate, he wrote letters to these gentlemen 
on the subject of the decision. If it could be defended on the evidence 
why should he fall back on the opinions of men, who, it will not be pre- 
tended, had ever particularly examined the subject. And the most thai 
these testimonials amount to is, that these gentlemen were satisfied with 
the decision, presuming undoubtedly, without a particular examination 
of the evidence, that the decision was correct. But if the case had been 
correctly laid before them, as it now appears, that our commissioner de- 
cided this epiestion without ever understanding its merits, would they 
then have expressed themselves satisfied? 

But we have another question to which we should be glad to have an 
answer. Mr. Holmes has published his testimonials from two of the four 
surviving ministers who negociated the treaty of Ghent, neither of whom 
had ever had occasion to make a special examination of this controversy. 
One of the other two has. Mr. Gallatin negociated the convention un- 
der which the question that had arisen under the fifth article of the treaty 
of Ghent has since been referred to the king of the Netherlands. The 
boundary line under the fifth is the same as that under the fourth article, 
the firmer relating to the northern and the latter tu the southern part of 
the line. He is one of the agents to prepare the ease for the umpire. 

comma, liic western and eastern arc by a comma and the eastern and southern by a 
period. I only ask the reader lo compare this with the commission under the great 
seal. It is fair however ihat Mr. Holmes's vindication of his new system of punc- 
tuation should be given. Mere it is. 

" Now, for the purpose of uniting the other sectioua of the f.rst line from Cape Sa- 
ble to Cape Breton, except the last, they arc only divided by a comma, while that 
from the Hay des Chaleure to Cape Breton is separated by a colon and commence, 
with a capital T. After the Hay des Chaleure, thus, ' To "the Eastward,' &c. thus" 
attempting to make this a distinct sentence that the Islands embraced mavbe limited 
to that line. This is n ,» the reading of the commission itself and I have moreover 
examined the manuscript of Mr. Dearie's report and it repels this punctuation. In 
Wilmot's commission there is a semi-colon at the end of the first an 1 second line 
and in Gov. Legge's Commission, where the same boundary is recited, there is a com- 
ma only, at the end of each line. This attempt to divide the first line by a distinct 
sentence, if intended to make the islands included apply to the htst section only, is ns 
paipable a forgery as if words or sentences had been added or suppressed. 1 impute 
this to no one, I only state the fact." 

It would be asking too much of the reader fo tax his time with the reading of an 
answer to this. 



£6 

lie ha's therefore been required, by bis official duties, to examine the 
whole subject. Why has Mr. Holmes failed to produce a letter from the, 
only one of the ministers whose testimony can have any authority on 
this subject. Was he afraid to ask for Mr. Gallatin's opinion lest it should 
riot be in his favor 1 ? Or has he obtained a letter from him and dares not 
publish if? These are questions to which the public have a right to ex- 
pect Mr. Holmes's answer. (12) If we are to be referred to the testimonia 
eruditorum let us have the testimony of those who are actually erudite 
on this particular subject. I am willing to rest the whole controversy on 
this single point. If Mr. Holmes can obtain the opinion of Mr. Gallatin 
that his decision secures to us all the rights which were guaranteed by 
the treaty of 1783, I will acknowledge that his decision is correct. In this 
I mean no disrespect to Messrs. Adams and Clay. They were never re- 
quired particularly to investigate the subject. The want of Mr. Gallatin's 
testimony is more than an answer to all the letters of approbation that 
Mr. Holmes has produced. 

By the terms of the decision it will be recollected that Moose, Dudley 
and Frederic Islands are declared to belong to the United States, and all, 
each and every other island in the bay of Passamaquoddy, and Grand Me- 
nan in the bay ofFundy to Great Britain, according to the true intent and 
meaning oj the treaty of 1783. It has been stated in the papers that there 
are several islands which lie between Moose, Dudley and Frederic and 
our shore. (13) The ground on which Mr. Holmes vindicates his decis- 
ion is, that all islands within six leagues of the Nova-Scotia shore belong 
to that province ; that in point of fact these three islands, being within 
that distance, did belong of right to Nova-Scotia, and that he obtained 
them in exchange for Grand Menan, which he admits to be ours under 
the treaty. Now these islands between Moose Island, &c. and our shore, 
are in the bay of Passamaquoddy end within six leagues of the shore of 
Nova-Scotia. It is clear therefore that they are assigned to Great Brit- 
ain by the words of the decision, and that they justly belonged to her as 
being within the principle upon which the decision was made, that is, as 
being within six leagues of the shore. Still Mr. Holmes says that it was 
not the intention to cede these islands to Great Britain. Why then, I 
ask, were they not specially excepted. They are given to her both by 
the words and the principle of the decision. 

If the intention of the commissioners was what is stated by Mr. Holmes, 
nothing can excuse the gross carelessness with which the decision was 
drawn up. The commissioners went on the spot and the expense of the 
expedition was defrayed by the two governments ; they saw these islands 
before them in passing from Lubec to Eastport and St. Andrews. And 
yet with the islands before their eyes they decided that except the three 
islands named all, each and every other island in the bay of Passamaquod- 
dy belonged to Great Britain, meaning thereby that seven or eight other 
islands, besides those named, did not belong to Great Britain but did bc- 

(12) The fact is that Mr. Holmes wrote to Mr. Gallatin and received au answer. 
The reason why it was not published may easily be conjectured. 

(18) The non-enumerated Islands are besides Pope'.- Folly, mentioned in the text, 
Roger'* Island containing 40 acres, Burying Island, Major's Island, Cooper's 
Island containing 12 acres — Goose Island and Hammond's Island. These have 
channels round them at low water. There are a number of small islands, and one 
containing 80 acres called Carlo's Island, connected with Moose Island by a bar at 
low water, in ihe same manner that Cnmpobcllo was connected with the Main Amer- 
ican continent in 1783 



27 

long to the United States! This is equal to mistaking the eastern boun- 
dary of Nova-Scotia for the western. 

But we are told these islands are appurtenant to Moose Island. Two 
or three may be so considered as being connected with it by a bar, which 
is dry at low water. But with respect to the others they are nearer to the 
shore of the main land than to Moose Island. Take Mark Island or Pope's 
Folly for an instance. A ship of the line can sail around this at low wa- 
ter. It is as distant from Moose Island as it is from Campobello, and can 
at least with as much propriety be called an appurtenance of the latter 
as the former. And it is a fact, worthy of remark, that it is actually 
claimed by Mr. Owen, the owner of Campobello, on two titles, first as 
an appurtenance of that island and secondly under a grant from the gov- 
ernment of Nova-Scotia. 

Another argument is urged by Mr. Holmes with respect particularly to 
this island, lie says that it has been decided by our courts to be within 
the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore to belong to us. (14) Is 
Mr. Holmes so extremely ignorant as not to know that in controversies 
between independent nations as to boundaries the courts of the respect- 
ive countries have no jurisdiction to decide the question ; that disputes 
between nations must be settled hy negociations and not by the decision 
of their courts of justice ? 

I do not deny that one island may, under some circumstances, be con- 
sidered as appurtenant to another. This maybe the case where a small 
island is connected by a bar at low water with a larger one, and for the 
same reason an island may be appurtenant to the main. If at the time 
when the treaty was made any of the islands in the bay of Passamaquod- 
dy were thus connected witli our shore, it is not to be presumed that it 
could be the intention of the treaty to give them to Great Britain. Such 
precisely was the fact with regard to Campobello. The bar behceen that 
Island and Lubec was then and always had been dry at low water. The 
rapid current of the water, through that narrow channel, has gradually 
worn it deeper and now at ebb tide there is a depth of tour or five feet 
of water. But this bar was left bare at low water as late as the year 
1799. It is therefore manifest, on Mr. Holmes's own argument, that 
Campobello belonged to us as an appurtenance to the main. 1 have be- 
fore shewn that it lies west of the boundary line of Nova-Scotia, as that 
was permanently established by Wilmot's commission and as it has re- 
mained ever since. Under the treaty therefore it rightfully belonged to 
us by two titles; first, if it was to be considered merely as an island, it is 
excluded from Nova-Scotia by the line which established the western 
limits of that province and is within the limits assigned to the United 
States; and secondly being connected with Lubec point by a bar which 
though covered at flood tide, was dry at low water, it belonged to us as 
an appurtenance or accession to the main. 

It may not be uninstructive now to look back to the several points, 
which have been examined in the progress of this controversy, and bring 
them all under review together. It is proper however first to remark, 

(14) It is true that the very strange manner in which Mr. Holmes's decision is 
drawn up, has given rise to two or three invcierate and expensive lawsuits. And so 
clear, under the treaty of 1783, is the right of jurisdiction over these Islands in the 
United States, that the Courts of the United Stales have sustained their officers in 
enforcing the laws, iu the very teeth, as it were, of Mr. H'e. decision. 



28 

that I have confined myself to the principal i>uii)ts on which the whole 
case necessarily turns. 1 have passed by a variety ol* errors, both of fact 
and argument, in Mr. Holmes's letters, where the refutation of them was 
not necessary for the purpose of establishing the principal points in con- 
troversy. 

1. Mr. Holmes assumed an authority which was not given him by the 
treatv and decided the controversy by a compromise or bargain. This 
is his own statement. He knowingly and intentionally ceded the island of 
Grand Menan, which belonged to Maine, to Great Britain, lie was 
bound by his commission to decide on the title of the parlies under the 
treaty, and the decision in its terms goes on this ground. " We have de- 
voided and do decide that Moose Island, Dudley Island and Frederic 
" Island in the Bay of Passatnaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, 
"do, and each of them does belong to the United States of America. And 
"we have also decided and do decide, that all the other islands and each 
- 1 - and every of them in the said bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of 
"the Bay of Fundy, and the island of Grand Menan in the bay of Fundy, 
"do belong to his Britannic Majesty in conformity with the true intent of the 
« said 2nd article of the treaty of 1783." This is the language of the decision, 
yet Mr. Holmes now savs that he did not decide on our title in conformity 
with the true intent of the treaty; that Grand Menan by that treaty in truth 
and fact belonged to Maine and that he agreed to cede it to Great Britain 
in exchange for Moose Island, &c. By this decision Mr. Holmes, accord- 
ing to his own shewing, transcended his authority, violated the constitu- 
tion of the United States, and disregarded the obligation of his own oath, 
for in the decision itself the commissioners say that they were duly sworn 
impartially to examine and decide on the claim of the parties. With 
respect to this island, therefore, Mr. Holmes is convicted on his own 
words of a gross and palpable violation of duty. 

2. The dividing line between JYova-Scolia and Maine. Mr. Holmes's 
error on this I do'not ascribe to a wilful and intentional violation of our 
rights and his own duty. I attribute it entirely to ignorance, and his ig- 
norance to incapacitv or negligence. It has been seen that the bounda- 
ries of Nova-Scotia were established in 1763, in the commission of Gov. 
Wilmot. They have never been altered since, but the commission of 
every succeeding Governor sets forth the western boundary in the words 
of this document. This is formed by a line drawn from Cape Sable to 
the mouth of the St. Croix. Yet notwithstanding this boundary is thus 
described in words thus clear and unequivocal, establishing a certain and 
definite limit, it is contended in direct opposition to them by Mr. Holmes, 
that all the islands lying within six leagues of the Nova-Scotia shore, are 
annexed to that province. The only argument by which this extraor- 
dinary assumption is maintained is this; the islands within six leagues of 
the eastern coast are, by the express terms of the document, annexed to 
the province, and therefore, says Mr. Holmes, the islands within that 
distance of the western Coast are also, though the document says no such 
thing. But on the southern boundary the islands within forty leagues 
are included. Why then not take this as the distance on the west, espe- 
cially as the southern and western boundaries are contiguous while the 
eastern and western are not. I have already exposed the miserable 
grammatical quibble of Mr. Holmes on this subject. Indeed the resort 
to such a quibble is equivalent to an admission that he can no longer de- 
fend his decision on the evidence or by argument. As little aid does he 
derive from the antiquated grant to Sir William Alexander, which was 



29 

called in only when he was reduced to silence on every other ground of 
argument. The commission of Wihnot, as it was corrected and issued 
under the great seal of England, is an answer at once to the grant to Sir 
William Alexander and to Mr. Holmes's new system of grammar and 
punctuation. That document, of the most formal and solemn character, 
referring to the former supposed boundaries of the province, and let it be 
remarked, not to those in Sir William's grunt, professedly restrains them 
to the line we have before described. It not only puts an end to every 
doubt but to every possible cavil. 

3. It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said with respect to Camp- 
obello. It undoubtedly belonged to us by the treaty, but it was yielded 
by the imbecility of our commissioner and is now lost. (15) 

4. Mr. Holmes referred at first, with great complacency, to a letter 
signed by both the commissioners, in which they express it as their opin- 
ion that the waters of the bay are common to both nations for the ordi- 
nary purposes of navigation. Our commissioner has professed to believe 
that this secures to us as a right the free use of those waters for the pur- 
pose of trade. Nothing can be clearer than that this letter is a mere 
nullity. It can have no possible effect. It is no part of the decision and 
does not pretend to decide any thing. It leaves our rights precisely where 
they would have been if Col. Barclay and Mr. Holmes had expressed no 
opinion on the subject. If Col. Barclay succeeded in persuading our 
commissioner that such a paper could secure to us any right, this only 
proves that the United States were poorly represented on that commis- 
sion. If Campobello had not been surrendered to England even Mr. 
Holmes would not pretend that this declaration, as it is called by him, 
could be of any value to us. As it is lie has exchanged that valuable 
island for a piece of waste paper. The waters of the bay have always 
been used in common by both parties as well before as since the decision, 
and they will probably continue so in time of peace. But in time of war 

(15) Mr. Holmes having endeavored to sustain himself by the letters, already 
mentioned, of Messrs. Monroe, Adams and Clay, neither of whom ever had occasion 
to become acquainted with the matter in controversy, I have thought it might not be 
unacceptable to my readers to quote, in this place, an extract from the Report of 
Egbert Benson, Esquire, one of the Commissioners under the treaty of 1791, made 
in 1799, at the time of their decision, to the President of the United States. Judge 
Benson, after stating the grounds on which a majority of the Commissioners decided 
the Schoodiac to be the St. Croix of the Treaty of 17S3, proceeds : — 

" The Treaty supposes the Saint Croix to issue immediately into the Bay of Fundy, 
and of course that there would be an entire seaboard boundary, if it may be so ex- 
pressed, between the termination of the southern and the commencement of the east- 
ern boundary of the United States; and it also intended that, where the eastern 
boundary passed through waters, which were navigable, that both nations 
should equally participate in the navigation. The question then is how is the 
boundary in the intermediate space, between where the mouth of the St. Croix hath 
been decided to be and the Bay of Fundy, to be established most consistent with the 
Treaty. In answer to which it may be suggested, that the boundary should be a 
line passing through one of the passages between the Bay of Fundy and the Bay of 
Passamaquoddy, that the west passage, being unfit for lite purpose, having a Bar 
across it, which is dry at low water, the next to it must be taken, and the line 
may be described : Beginning in the middle of the channel of the river St. Croix at 
its mouth thence direct to the middle of the channel between point Pleasant and 
Deer Island, thence through the middle of the channel betioeen "Deer Island on the 
east and north, ami Moose Island and Campobello Island on the west and south, 
and round the eastern point of Campobello island to the Bay of Fundy." 

This is precisely the line for which I have contended] giving Campobello to us. 



30 

wo fliall be excluded from the waters of Passamaquoddy, not only by 
tlic loss of Campobello but also by the cession of Grand Mcnan. For 
this we arc indebted to Mr. Holmes. 

5. Mark Island and the islands which lie between Moose, Frederic and 
Dudley and our shore. These islands the decision, both in its express 
terms and on the principle upon which the commissioners made their 
decision, are ceded to Britain. They all are situated within six leagues 
of the Nova-Scotia shore. But it is not pretended that they have ever 
been in possession of the English, nor do 1 recollect that they have ever 
claimed them. They are now clearly, by the terms of the decision, sur- 
rendered to England. But Mr. Holmes says that they were not intended 
to be embraced in the cession. If they should be claimed what answer 
can we make. We can say that, in the enumeration of the islands be- 
longing to us, these were omitted by fraud or mistake. Shall we be 
heard in imputing fraud to our own commissioner ? As to mistake the 
British may answer that the commissioners went to the spot, that these 
islands were before their eyes when the decision was made, and that 
mistake cannot be supposed without imputing to our commissioner that 
extreme and gross negligence that is equivalent to fraud. 

NOTE. 

In the 5th number of these essays, I made an extract from the com- 
mission of Gov. Wilmot, under the Privy Seal, in reply to the extraordi- 
nary and ludicrous criticism of Mr. Holmes on the draft. The extract 
was taken from a report of a committee of the Nova-Scotia legislature. 
Mr. Holmes might safely conclude that the tract from which 1 borrowed 
the extract was in the hands of but few persons in this State. It is man- 
ifest, from his remarks, that he had never seen it himself, for if he had it 
is impossible that he should so totally have misunderstood both its object 
and import. The slight alteration in form between the authentic com- 
mission and the draft, placed Mr. Holmes, with his parade of commas 
and semi-colons, in such a pitiable and ridiculous situation, that there 
was no escape from the contempt into which his temerity and folly had 
brought him, but by denying the authenticity of the document which I 
had quoted. 

I had seen so much of Mr. Holmes's style of controversy in the course 
of this discussion, that I will not pretend that I felt any unusual senti- 
ment of surprise or indignation when I found him boldly denying that 
any such document existed as that which I had quoted. He asserted, in 
the most unqualified terms, that the report of the Nova-Scotia legislature 
did not recite and did not pretend to recite the commission of Wilmot ; 
that the extract, which I quoted, was a spurious and fabricated docu- 
ment. If he did not directly charge me with the forgery his words very 
plainly conveyed that meaning. 

At that time I could do nothing more than repeat the assertion that 
the document was genuine. I gave to my readers my word against that 
of Mr. Holmes. Here was direct assertion and positive denial, and the 
charge of a deliberate attempt to deceive the public by a wilful falsehood, 
attaches to one party or the other. Let it resi where it belongs. 

Though I have reason to believe that my word will pass for quite as 
much as that of Mr. Holmes, I am happy now to have it in my power to 
satisfy the public on this subject. The agents on our northeastern boun- 
dary have obtained from the British government an authenticated copy 



31 

of Wilmot's commission and the government of tho United States have 
communicated a transcript from this to the Governor of Maine, to be 
lodged in tho archives of the State. I have obtained an extract from this 
commission, which is copied below, and tiiose who wish to verify it, may 
compare it with the copy in the office of the Secretary of State. (10) 

"In the fourth year of the reign, &c. of George III. &c." 

" Know you, that we, reposing especial trust and confidence in the prudence, cour- 
age and loyalty of you, the said Montague Wilmot, of our especial grace, certain 
knowledge and mere motion, have thought fit to constitute and appoint, and by these 
presents do constitute and appoint you, the said Montague Wilmot, to be our Captain 
General and Governor in Chief in and over our province of Nova-Scotia, and which 
we have thought proper to restrain and comprize within the following limits, viz : — 
To the Northward our said province shall be bounded by the Southern boundary of 
our province of Quebec as far as the western extremity of the bay ties Chaleurs ; to 
the eastward by the said bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Cape or Promon- 
tory called Cape Britain in the island of that name, including that island, the island 
of St. Johns, and all other islands within six leagues of the coast ; to the Southward 
by the Atlantic ocean from the said Cape to Cane Sable, including the island of that 
name and all other islands within forty leagues of the coast, with all the rights, mem- 
bers and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging; and to the Westward, al- 
though our said province hath anciently extended and doth of right extend as far as 
the river Pontagonet or Penobscot, it shall be boundod by a line drawn from Cape 
Sable across the entrance of the bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by 
the said river to its source and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern 
boundary of our Colony of Quebec. 

" Witness ourself at Westminster, the twenty-first day of November. 
" By writ of privy seal." 

I ask the reader to compare this copy with the extracts which I gave 
in the Argus of May 19, and I presume that lie will be satisfied ; but if he 
is not, to compare it with the attested copy in the office of the Secretary 
of State. lie will then see how much confidence can be placed in the 
word of Mr. Holmes. 

The letters of Mr. Holmes are so full of errors and misstatements, that 
it would be taxing the reader's patience too far to go through them and 
correct all. I therefore only adverted to such as were most essentially 
connected with the principal argument and left the others to stand on 
the authority of Mr. Holmes's general character for correctness and ve- 
racity. If I had done more it would have been proper to correct all his 
deviations from the truth of facts or the reader might have concluded 
that statements and assertions which were left unnoticed were correct 
There is however one assertion of Mr. Holmes, which as it is several 
times repeated by him, ought not to pass without contradiction. He has 
in the most distinct and unequivocal manner asserted that by the treaty 
made bv Mr. King in 1803, Campobello and Grand Menem were yielded 
to the British. This assertion is untrue. If the reader will look to that 
treaty in the tenth volume of Waite's State Papers, page 470, he will find 
this rejected treaty. The first article relates to tho islands in the bay of 
Passamaquoddy, and the reader will see that the island of Grand Menan 
is not mentioned, but a jurisdictional line is drawn which would clearly 
have left that island to us. 
SULPICIUS. 

(16) There was a typographical error, not at all affecting the question nt issue 
however, of "September" for " November," in the date of the Commission copied 
into the Argus from the Nova-Scotia printed report. This error, copied as already 
Suggested, constitutes the fact on which Mr. H. seizes in order to charge mci^rt 1 ' 
forging a public document. 



IiSTTISRS Or JUSTUS. 



It will be perceived that Mr. Holmes hopes that the public attention 
may be diverted from bis decision by abusing Messrs. Preble and (baii- 
dler, and by connecting it With otbcr subjects having little or no relation 
to it. Without, at this time, saying any thing of the conduct or charac- 
ter of those gentlemen, who can never need vindication, when the sub- 
jects of Mr. Holmes' remarks, we will briefly give our views of the case, 
as decided, as it appears from Mr. Holmes' own statement of it. 

By tbe treaty of 1783, all islands within twenty leagues belonged to 
the United States except such as tben did or bad belonged to Nova Sco- 
tia ; and Nova Scotia was defined in 1764 as including all islands within 
six leagues of tbe shore. And Mr. H. says "most palpably" " tbe island 
of Grand Men an except a small part of it is not" " within six leagues of 
tbe shore" of Nova Scotia. " Most palpably" tben tbe large and valuable 
island of Grand Mcnan urns awarded to the British when there was no 
doubt even in his oivn mind that it belonged toils! We do not under- 
stand Mr. Holmes to deny that ice lost that island by his decision. He 
says " the British right to Grand Menan was as weak or nearly so as 
ours to Moose, Dudley and Frederic." But be justifies the loss of it by 
having gained an equivalent in tbe three otber islands. That is, instead 
of deciding what our rights really were, as be was bound to do by that 
sense of justice, which guides every man of integrity, and by bis own 
solemn oath of office, he deliberately disregards all sense of justice, and 
all the sanctions of an oath, and enters upon bis duties of Commissioner 
to drive a bargain ! This is tbe plain English of his own statement, or 
we do not understand it ; and we ask our readers to look at his own 
statement as published in the last Advertiser, and judge for tbemselves if 
it does not amount to this. We make no charge of this kind against him 
unless it clearly appeal's from his own shewing. By his own mouth let 
him stand or fall in this thing. 

But poor and degrading as this justification is, we are not satisfied with 
bis proof that he acquired any thing as an equivalent. He seems to sup- 
pose that because Moose Island lies within six leagues of the Nova Sco- 
tia shore it therefore clearly belonged to Nova Scotia. And yet the fact 
Ls admitted, that there are several small islands in the bay, which tbe 
" British have never pretended to claim,'' and "an attempt to set up a 
British jurisdiction to one of them failed on the ground that the jurisdic- 
tion and title were in the United States." And how came the jurisdic- 
tion and title in the United States? Not by virtue of Mr. Holmes' decis- 
ion, for he awarded "all and every of them" to the British. Not because 
they were more than six leagues from the Nova Scotia shore, for be 
says they were within six leagues of it. We hold them by precisely the 



33 

same title by which we held Eastport or Moose Island before Mr. 
Holmes' decision ; " on the ground that the jurisdiction and title" was in 
the then Province, now State of Maine, before the Nova Scotia boundary 
was fixed in 17G3 ; and have ever since held them by that title. Merely 
because Great Britain saw fit to extend the boundary of one Province 
created at that time so as nominally to infringe upon the boundary of 
another Province long before created and granted away, that did not and 
could not alter the boundaries of the first Province. We ask Mr. Holmes 
to point us to any title by which we hold " Pope's Folly" and " Rogers' " 
islands, (for the idea of their being appendant is quite idle) which would 
not equally give us Moose Island. And yet he thinks the title to these too 
strong to be shaken even after he had decided that " all and every of 
them" in that bay except Moose, Dudley and Frederic, belong to the 
British. 

Mr. Holmes again justifies his decision on the ground that the islands 
not enumerated " were never mentioned in the claims put in by the 
Agents of either party, and were therefore not subjects for the adjudica- 
tion of the Commissioners." And why were they not mentioned by the 
Agents ? Did it never occur to Mr. H. that it was because they well 
knew that they belonged to the U. States, and that no dispute existed 
respecting them, although they were within six leagues of the Nova 
Scotia shore ? And truly as Mr. Holmes says, they were " not subjects 
for the adjudication of the Commissioners ;" and yet he undertakes by 
the award, doubtless to the astonishment of the Agents, to determine 
upon them ; and to award each and every of them to the British ! And 
it is only by doing violence to the language of the award, that one can 
come to the conclusion that they do not now truly belong to the British 
by that decision. 

It can be no proper justification for Mr. Holmes, that our ministers at 
Ghent were authorised to settle the title to the islands as he settled it; 
although this is not admitted. A nation in the midst of a war may be 
willing to make sacrifices to obtain peace, which when peace is obtained 
and a fair opportuity is afforded to preserve all her just rights, she would 
never make ; and which then she has no occasion to make. She then 
claims her rights, all her rights, and no more. 

Nor are the letters of Messrs. Monroe, Adams, and Clay, more satisfac- 
tory to an intelligent mind. They express their opinions; but are the 
people of Maine possessed of so little intelligence and capacity, that they 
must rely upon the opinions of men, high in power and office if you 
please, but who have had little personal knowledge of and feel little in- 
terest in the question, for an exposition of their rights, instead of judging 
for themselves? This is not an age, nor they a people to form an opin- 
ion from the ipsi dixit of any man. Mr. Holmes must show to this peo- 
ple, not that some men in authority approve his course, but that hi« 
decision was right. 

ERRORS CORRECTED. 

In the first communication of Mr. Holmes relating to the decision un- 
der the fourth article of the treaty of Ghent he seems to consider the 
right to navigate the waters in the bay of Passamaquoddy as a part of 
the consideration for the loss of the island of Grand Menan ; and to sup- 
pose ! e really acquired the right of common navigation in those waters 
by the letter or declaration accompanying that decision. (17) "A common 

(17) For t!ie nature of this " declaration," as Mr. H. calls it, see note (2) page 9. 



34. 

right (says Mr. Holmes) to the navigable waters east of our islands is what the 
lata of nations would not have given us." We think Air. Holmes' opinion en- 
tirely erroneous. The law of nations did give such a right of navigation, 
and we exercised that right in those waters before Mr. Holmes' decision, 
without a doubt cast upon the rightful exercise of it. Mr. Justice Story, iu 
a case before him, used the following language : " There is no pretence to 
say, that Great Britain had, as to us, acquired, previously to the revolu- 
tion, any exclusive right to the waters of Passamaquoddy bay. These 
waters were common to all the subjects of the realm ; and just as much 
a part of our right and inheritance as of any other of the British domin- 
ions. The American colonies used them on all occasions, and the province 
of Massachusetts which was contiguous to the bay, and perpetually used 
the waters for the purpose of navigation, and trade, and passage, might just 
as well be deemed the proprietor as the province of New Brunswick, or 
as the realm of England. In truth the law of nations must under such 
circumstances be presumed silently to prevail, and annex the bay to the 
middle of the stream to the territories of the adjacent provinces ; and as 
there was at all times a common right of passage and navigation exercis- 
ed over the whole bay, and it was necessary for the convenience of all par- 
ties, the whole waters must be deemed common for these purposes." (18) 

Other authorities might be adduced, but this must be entirely satisfac- 
tory; and more especially is it to be regarded as we understand Messrs. 
Holmes and Barclay's declaration was before the Court on the occasion, 
and was considered as making no alteration whatever of the rights of 
navigation in the waters of the bay. Mr. Holmes appears to have been in 
an error in this instance as to the extent of our rights ; and to have thought 
that he acquired for us, what we already rightfully enjoyed. Again we think 
him erroneous when be asserts that it is "a subject which has been put 
at rest for twelve years, a decision which has never been questioned;" 
and charges American citizens with making difficulties respecting it. 
We understand that as early as the year 1821, disputes arose respecting 
the right of navigation and use of those waters; and that they were ad- 
justed only by a legal decision. And that in the following year a seizure 
of goods was made on Pope's Folly Island for being landed unlawfully 
in the United States ; and that the goods were claimed by a Mr. Bicker, 
a British subject resident in the Provinces, who contended that the island 
belonged to the British by virtue of the decision of Mr. Holmes ; and that 
he even sued the Collector as a trespasser for making the seizure. Those 
who wish for more information are referred to the records of the Court 
of the United States in this district. We believe all these things were 
known to Mr. Holmes about the time they took place. 

Mr. Holmes says in another place, "that which I suggested was the 
status ante bellum, the condition in which we were before the war, and 
that to which our decision restored us." Thereby alleging, that he left up 
as we were before the war ; and as the ministers at Ghent would have 
been willing to have left us. Is not this also an entirely erroneous view? 
A mutual restoration of territory was what the ministers at Ghent were 
authorised to treat for; and with that the government would be satisfied, 
and Mr. Holmes informing Messrs. Monroe, Adams and Clay, that his 
decision amounted to that, and that only ; they lately express their ap- 
probation of it. A mutual restoration of territory might have put us in 
possession of the same which Mr. Holmes's decision did ; but it would not 

(18) Schooner Fame. 8 Mason's Reports, 147. 



35 

have relinquished any claim which ive had to what might thus be put inpos- 
session of the British. It woidd not have relinquished our just title to Grand 
Menan. Nor would it have afforded the British a chance of hereafter assert- 
ing a claim to the Islands not enumerated. Nor would have relinquished 
all claim to Campobello. Mr. Holmes's decision forever precludes us from 
asserting our claim to Grand Menan and Campobello — to one of which 
he admits our title to be good; and it is forever lost; while the status 
ante bellum would have left it in the possession of the British with an abil' 
ity and a right on our part to assert our just clains to these islands when a 
favorable opportunity should be offered. Surely this is a distinction 
which a statesman might see and appreciate. Mr. Holmes not being 
able, or not perceiving this distinction, may have occasioned the decision 
to be such as it was. 

JUSTUS. 



APPENDIX. 

PART I. 
LETTERS OF MR. HOLMES, 



Alfred, D. M. 26th June, 1817. 

Bear Sir: The Commissioners, on the 13th instant, adjourned to meet 
at Boston, on the 25th Septemher next. This adjournment was after the, 
agents had introduced their evidence and made their arguments, that 
the agents might have time to reply. The survey taken, under the treaty 
of 1794, having been admitted in this case, and all the evidence necessary 
being produced, it was hoped that the subject would not have been de- 
layed so long. But the agents reluctantly consented to so early a day as 
the 25th September. This placed me in an embarrassing situation. This 
business must be finished before I take my seat in Congress. I still think, 
however, that there is sufficient time to come to some result before the ses- 
sion of Congress. Mr. Austin is very able, and has been very industrious. 
If the gentlemen reply to each other, in September, and should require a 
further time to rejoin, it may press the business into the winter. I am 
satisfied, that all that ivill be necessary, may be said in time to finish before 
the session of Congress. I wish to finish, if possible, so as not to disappoint 
the government or my constituents. Did I not believe that justice might be 
done the subject in that time, 1 would not urge the agent to make haste, 
let the consequence be what it might to myself. But / believe that the 
subject is not attended with much perplexity, and that it might be as well 
understood after a month's further examination as iu ten years. 

What is the probability of the Commissioners agreeing to any thing is 
impossible to divine at present. If we do agree, the sooner the people 
on the frontiers know it, the better. If we do not, it will be important 
that the government should be soon advertised of it. that they may adopt 
ulterior measures. If, in any communication with Mr. Austin, you should 
think it expedient to intimate that as much expedition as the nature of 
the case will admit, will be very agreeable to me personally, (if this be 
consistent with the feelings of the government,) you will very much oblige 
me. My difficulty is upon the ground that I cannot take my seat in Congress 
while this business is pending. Upon this point there can, I apprehend, 
be little or no doubt. 

My constituents woidd, 1 have reason to think, be much disappointed, ivere 
I obliged to resign my seat. — But even then, if my duty to the government 
could not be otherwise performed, I should, perhaps, not hesitate. 
I am, dear Sir, 

Yours, most respectfully, 
(Signed,) J. HOLMES 

Hon. Richard Rush, 

Acting Secretary of State. 



37 

Alfred, 27th August, 1817. 

Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Col. Barclay with my 
answer. Upon reading the 8th article of the treaty Col. B. must, I think, 
he mortified at the opinion which he has given in his letter. Indeed the 
whole letter appears to have been written without much consideration. 
As it is marked private you will of course use it accordingly. I thought 
it my duty to communicate it to you in extenso that the President may 
see that the agents may finish before the session of Congress * if they see fit. 

I believe that the American agent is particularly solicitous for further 
time. I presume from the purest motives. And could I imagine any 
possible good from delay I should readily consent. But I have stated my 
views in my letter to Col. Barclay, to resign my seat in Congress at this 
time would not only disappoint my friends but place them so unfavorably 
as probably to defeat them upon a new election. And the whole blame 
would fall' on me. To resign my commission would create much delay 
and embarrassment and a new commissioner would come in under great 
disadvantages. To finish then if possible becomes our duty. The evi- 
dence is all probably before us. The agents have from 12th June to 
25th September to reply. Our session might then continue ten days — 
we could then afford them six weeks more to rejoin and finish all before 
December.^ 

Another course might be adopted. / have heard enough, and it seems 
by Col. Barclay's letter that he has. If, upon consultation in September, 
we agree, no further argument would be necessary. If, which is not 
improbable, we should not agree, we might, having heard enough for 
ourselves, permit the agents to rejoin afterwards, they judging that further 
argument might be necessary before the ultimate tribunal ; or, if the trea- 
ty does not admit other evidence or argument than what should be con- 
tained in the report to go before the friendly sovereign, might not some 
arrangement be made between the two governments in this particular? 
I cannot myself see, that the sovereign who is ultimately to decide, has 
any thing to do with the arguments of the agents. If, however, he is to 
decide on the report, or reports, including the arguments, &c. then pro- 
bably after arguments might be received, so that no delay might be crea- 
ted after the Commissioners were satisfied for themselves. 

So far from agreeing with Col. Barclay that he would not be authorized 
to act with a new commission on my resignation — I have no doubt that 
the treaty expressly provides for such an event. And should he attempt 
to decide expartc on the ground he suggests it would be wrong. Indeed 
I can see very little prospect of coining to any thing like a rational result 
with that gentleman. Should the agents urge further time than would 
be afforded them and should he consent to it, what then would be my 
duty ? Were I fully satisfied that I had heard and understood all thai 
Avas necessary and my colleague could not be prevailed upon to come to 
a decision, why might I not make up a report on the ground that he had 
refused, declined or wilfully omitted to act? 

Should the President feel disposed to authorize and instruct the Ameri- 

*" Still harping upon my daughter." Why il<»es not Mr. Holmes publish these 
letters'? Would they disclose the manner by which the "gentleman of some plausi- 
bility and superficial cunning'" was practicing to come over the American Commis- 
sioner through his" seat in Congress." The above and other passages in this sin- 
gular letter certainly give color to the suggestion 

t So that he might take his seat. 



38 

ean Commissioner to require the American agent to be prepared to close 
his argument by a given day, if the nature of the subject would admit of 
it, I have no apprehension but the whole might be finished with the ut- 
most ease. If his Britannic Majesty is equally solicitous to bring this 
subject to a close, his Minister at Washington would probably not be 
unwilling to urge to Col. Burclay and Mr. Chipman the importance of 
despatch. 

I assure you, Sir, that I am not hurrying this subject unreasonably : 
within the time I am willing to give them, the agents will have written 
more than two thousand pages in evidence and arguments. Can this 
simple subject possibly require more ? 

Excuse my troubling you so far, and believe me most affectionately 
your obedient servant. J. HOLMES. 

Hon. Richard Rush. 

Mr. Holmes to Mr. Adams. 

Boston, October 2d, 1817- 

Dear Sir: The agents have been heard in reply to each other's argu- 
ments, delivered on the 28th May, &c. and they ask a further hearing. 
The argument and documents already make more than 2000 pages of folio. 
There is no prospect that the Commissumers ivill agree. Col. Barclay says 
he has heard enough but is unwilling to take the responsibility of refus- 
ing the agents a further hearing. I must leave the commission on the first 
of December, to take my seat in Congress. Now, what is to de done ? All the 
evidence is received, and the subject has been literally exhausted. I have 
told the agents that being satisfied that enough has been eaid, and that 
further delay would require my resignation, I am bound to call on my 
colleague to come to a decision ; and in case he is disposed to hear the 
agents further, after he has expressly stated that he has heard enough, I 
shall be obliged to consider him as " refusing, declining, or omitting to 
act," and that I must make up a separate report to that effect. This I 
shall be obliged to do, unless the President shall think that course impro- 
per. Do write immediately. 1 have not yet received an answer to my 
last. 

I regret that the agents urge a further hearing. If Mr. Austin and Mr. 
Chipman should be directed by the President and Mr. Bagot not to insist 
on it, the difficulty would be removed. 

I am vours, most respectfully, 
(Signed) JOHN HOLMES. 

Hon. John Q. Adams, 

Secretary of Stale U. S. Washington City. 

Mr. Holmes to Mr. Mams. 

Alfred, l&th October, 1817. 
Dear Sir : Since stating to you the perplexities attending our progress 
relative to proceedings under the 4th article of the treaty of Ghent, we 
have proceeded amicably, and been able to come to a decision. As soon 
as duplicates are properly engrossed, we shall send them. We meet for 
this purpose at New York, on the 24th November. 

The decision, though not perhaps so favorable to the United States as it 
ought to be, yet it is, I trust, better than to disagree, and such as comports 
with the honor as well as interest of the United States. 
I am, Sir, most respectfully, 

Your very obedient and humble servant, 
(Signed) JOHN HOLMES.. 

Hon. John Q. Adams, 

Secretary of State U. S. Washington City. 



39 

Mr* Holmes to Mr. Adams. 

New York, 24lh November, 1817. 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to enclose yon the decision of the Com- 
missioners appointed in conformity to the 4th article of the treaty of 
Ghent. If it is not so favorable tojhe United States as it should be, yet I 
believe it is a decision honorable to the government, and such as I trust 
will be satisfactory to the people. 

Believe me, Sir, with every sentiment of respect and esteem, your friend 
and very humble servant. ' (Signed) J. HOLMES. 

Hon. "John Q. Adams, Secretary of State U.S. Washington City. 



PART II. 



COMMISSIONS. 1 
NOVA SCOTIA. 

In the sixth year of King George the Third. 

George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and 
Ireland King Defender of the Faith, &c. To our Trusty and well belov- 
ed William Campbell Esquire commonly called Lord William Campbell 
Greeting Wee reposing especial Trust and Confidence in the prudence 
Courage and Loyalty of you the said Lord William Campbell of our espe- 
cial grace certain knowledge and mere motion have thought tit to con- 
stitute and appoint And by these presents do constitute and appoint you 
the said Lord William Campbell to be our Captain General and Governor 
in Chief in and over our Province of Nova Scotia bounded on the West- 
ward by a Line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the Bay 
of Fundy to the Mouth of the River St. Croix by the said River to its 
source and by a Line drawn due North from thence to the Southern 
Boundary of our Colony of Quebec to the Northward by the said Boun- 
dary as far as the Western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs to the East- 
ward by the said Bay and the Gulph of Saint Lawrence to the Cape or 
Promontory called Cape Breton in the Island of that name including that 
Island the Island of St. John and all other islands within six Leagues of 
the Coast and to the Southward by the Atlantick Ocean from the said 
Cape to Cape Sable aforesaid including the Island of that name and all 
other Islands within Forty Leagues of the Coast with all the Rights 
Members and Appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging. 

Witness ourself at Westminster the eleventh day of August. 
By writ of privy seal. 

In the thirteenth year of King George the Third. 
George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain Fiance and 
Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c. To our Trusty and Well belov- 
ed Francis Lejrge Esquire Greeting Whereas &c. We reposing especial 
trust and confidence in the Prudence Courage and Loyalty of you the 
said Francis Legge of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere 
motion have thought fit to constitute and appoint you the said Francis 
Legge to be our Captain General and Governor in Chief of our said Pro- 
vince of Nova Scotia bounded on the Westward by a Line drawn from 
Cape Sable across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the Mouth of the 
River St. Croix by the said River to its source and by a Line drawn due 
North from thence to the Southern Boundary of our Colony of Quebec 
to the Northward by the said Boundary as far as the Western extremity 
of the Bay des Chaleurs to the Eastward by the said Bay and the Gulph 

*For Wilmot'a Commission see page 31. We liave printed the Commissions with- 
out poiuts because we found the copies so 



40 

of Saint Lawrence to the Cape or Promontory called Cape Breton in the 
Island of that name including that Island and all other Islands within six 
Leagues of the Coast excepting our said Island of Saint John which we 
have thought fit to erect into a separate government and to the South- 
ward by the Atlantic Ocean from the said Cape to Cape Sable aforesaid 
including the Island of that name and all other Islands within forty 
Leagues of the Coast with all the Rights Members and Appurtenances 
thereunto belonging. 

Witness ourself' at Westminster the twenty second day of July. 
By Writ of Privy Seal. 

In the twenty second year of King George the Third. 

George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain France and 
Ireland King Defender of the Faith, &c. To our Trusty and well beloved 
John Parr Esquire Greeting Whereas &c. We reposing especial Trust 
and Confidence in the Prudence Courage and Loyalty of you the said 
John Parr of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion have 
thought fit to constitute and appoint you the said John Parr to be our 
Captain General and Governor in Chief of our said Province of Nova 
Scotia bounded on the Westward by a Line drawn from Cape Sable 
across the Entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the Mouth of the River Saint 
Croix by the said River to its source and by a Line drawn due North 
from thence to the Southern Boundary of our Colony of Quebec To the 
Northward by the said Boundary as far as the Western Extremity of the 
Baye des Chaleurs To the Eastward by the said Bay and the Gulf of 
Saint Lawrence to the Cape or Promontory called Cape Breton in the 
Island of that name including that Island and all other islands within Six 
Leagues of the Coast (excepting our said Island of Saint John) and to the 
Southward by the Atlantiek Ocean from the said Cape to Cape Sable 
aforesaid including the Island of that name and all other Islands within 
forty leagues of the Coast with all the rights members and appurtenances 
whatsoever thereunto belonging. 

Witness ourself at Westminster the twenty-ninth day of July. 
By Writ of Privy Seal. 

NEW BHintfSWZCK. 

In the twenty-fourth year of King George the Third. 

George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and-. 
Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth To our Trusty and well- 
beloved Thomas Carleton Esquire Greeting Wee reposing especial Trust 
and Confidence in the Prudence Courage and Loyalty of you the said 
Thomas Carleton of our especial Grace certain knowledge and mere mo- 
tion have thought fit to constitute and appoint you the said Thomas 
Carleton to be our Captain General and Governor in Chief of our Prov- 
ince of New-Brunswick bounded on the Westward by the mouth of the 
River Saint Croix by the said River to its source and by a Line drawn 
due north from thence to the Southern Boundary of our Province of 
Quebec to the Northward by the said Boundary as far as the Western 
extremity of the Bav des Chaleurs to the Eastward by the said Bay and 
the Gulph of Saint Lawrence to the Ray called Bay Verte to the South 
by a Line in the centre of the Bay of Fundy from the River Saint Croix 
aforesaid to the mouth of the Mu squat River by the said River to its 
source and from thence by a due East Line across the Isthmus into the 
Bay Verte to join the Eastern Line above described including all Islands 
within six Leagues of the Const with all the Rights Members and appur- 
tenances whatsoever thereunto belonging. 

Witness ourself at Westminster the sixteenth day of August in the 
twenty fourth year of ovir R. ign. 

By writ of Privy Seal. 



/ 



\ 



* 






\ 



m 



4E7 






•**• 



■"*•■• 



':- 






/ 



'W 



•■*£• 



v" 



' 






I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 783 251 A M 






■ " 



v* 

!*#.* 






. 



"^ 






